9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar (A.Y) 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and working as a Primary School Teacher with the Primary Education School Board, Rajkot. Her gross salary for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was Rs. 5,42,401/- and after statutory allowable deduction as per Form No. 16 issued by her employer and the net taxable income was Rs. 4,97,370/- and after Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) of Rs. 30,629/-. The assesse filed her Return of Income on 30.05.2013 however by typographical mistake declaring the income as Rs. 54,97,370 as against her total income of Rs. 4,97,370/-. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 04.10.2013 by Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru and demanded a tax of Rs. 16,52,698/- on the mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 118 days in filing the above appeal. 5.1 Registry has noted that there is a delay of 118 days in filing appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. The appeal is filed before the Tribunal on 24.08.2020 whereas the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 30.04.2020 This period falls under COVID-Pandemic situation, thus following Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 23.3.2020 in suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, vide Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended time limit for filing appeals w.e.f. 15.3.2020. Thus, there is no delay in filing the above appeal and we take the appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merit. 6. Ld. Counsel Mr. Mehul J. Ranpura appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which warranting her to file a Revised Return of income. In the original return of income a typographical error of typing "5" in the prefix to the gross total income of Rs. 5,42,401/-. This is basically apparent mistake available on record. Therefore the filing of Revised Return does not arise in the above case. More particularly when Form No. 16 issued by the School Authorities clearly shows that the assesee's salary income and TDS thereon. Thus the lower authorities miserably failed to consider a genuine hardship caused to a school teacher while e-filing her return of income. Therefore the entire addition made is to be deleted and thereby allow the appeal of the assessee. 7. Per contra the ld. D.R. Shri B.D. Gupta appearing for the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., (cited supra). The ld. CIT(A) thus failed to appreciate the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., wherein it was held that the assessing officer cannot entertain a new claim or deduction unless a Revised Return is filed by the assessee whereas the Appellate Authorities without filing Revised Return, can entertain such new claim or deduction with appropriate proof before the Appellate Authorities. 8.1. Furthermore, in the present case at hand, the assessee has not made any new claim or deduction which require to file Revised Return. The grievance of the assessee is that the typographical error which has happened while filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
