Published 9 May 2026
How to challenge and correct an entry -- the six feedback options, the customised feedback library, the Source-confirmation cycle, escalation pathways and documentation discipline
Taxpayer Brief
It is now common for the Annual Information Statement to display an entry that the taxpayer either does not recognise, only partly recognises, or sees twice. The reasons range from honest mis-tagging by the reporting source (a bank reporting a savings interest credit against the wrong Permanent Account Number on a joint account), to genuine duplication (the same dividend reported by both the company and the registrar), to outright reporting error (a sale of property in which the taxpayer was only a co-purchaser shown at full value), to identity issues (a transaction that simply never happened). The Income-tax Department has built a structured feedback mechanism inside the Annual Information Statement portal precisely to let the taxpayer push back on each such entry -- but the mechanism only works if the taxpayer uses it correctly and within the filing-season window.
This article is the practitioner's manual for that feedback mechanism. It walks through each of the six feedback options, explains when to use which, sets out the customised feedback sub-options that the Central Board of Direct Taxes Handbook v4.1.0 (February 2026) has prescribed for specific categories, describes the Source-confirmation cycle, and gives a documentation checklist that holds up to a section 143(1)(a) intimation, a section 148A reopening notice, and a section 263 revision.
1. The Statutory Foundation of Feedback
The right to submit feedback on an Annual Information Statement entry flows from sub-rule (3) of Rule 114-I of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 read with the procedural manual issued by the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). The Annual Information Statement, as a sub-set of the broader Form 26AS under section 285BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a working document -- the values displayed at any moment are the latest reported figures, and the feedback mechanism gives the taxpayer the means to correct or contest them before those figures are accepted into the Taxpayer Information Summary and pre-filled into the return.
2. The Six Feedback Options -- When to Use Which
Option | Use When | Where the Value Goes |
|---|---|---|
Information is correct | The Reported Value matches the taxpayer's records (the bank-reported interest tallies with the actual credits) | Modified Value equals Reported Value; flows unchanged into the Taxpayer Information Summary |
Information is not fully correct | Some attributes (counterparty, date, classification) are right but the value or another attribute needs amendment | Taxpayer enters revised figures; risk-management screening; Source may be asked to confirm; if confirmed, the revised figure stands |
Information relates to other Permanent Account Number / Year | Wrongly tagged to this Permanent Account Number (typical for joint account interest) or wrongly placed in this assessment year (interest accrued in the previous year but reported in this) | Information is moved out of this Annual Information Statement to the correct Permanent Account Number / year using automated rules |
Information is duplicate / included in other information | The same transaction appears twice -- under different categories or different sources -- and the taxpayer can identify the canonical entry | The flagged entry is excluded from Taxpayer Information Summary aggregation |
Information is denied | The transaction simply never happened (identity-theft, mis-reporting at Source) | High-risk feedback; Source contacted; if Source denies the denial, the original Reported Value is restored and flagged |
Customised Feedback | Category-specific structured feedback supported in the seven categories added in v3.0.0 (January 2024) and additional categories added in v4.1.0 (February 2026) | Adds context to the Modified Value -- inheritance, gift, joint ownership, source of funds, reinvestment, etc. |
Choose the right option The wrong feedback option is almost as bad as no feedback. If a savings interest entry is mis-tagged to the spouse's Permanent Account Number, the correct option is 'Information relates to other Permanent Account Number / Year', not 'Information is denied'. The denial path triggers a high-risk Source-confirmation cycle and may invite a section 142(1) enquiry; the 'other Permanent Account Number' path simply re-routes the entry to the correct account holder. |
3. Customised Feedback -- the Category-Specific Library
The customised feedback option is more powerful than the five binary options. For specific categories, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has prescribed a structured set of sub-options that lets the taxpayer add context that the Source itself could not have known. The Handbook v4.1.0 (February 2026) extends this library; the taxpayer should always check whether the specific category supports a customised feedback before falling back on the generic options.
Category | Customised Feedback Sub-Options |
|---|---|
4.6 Interest from others | Already declared on accrual basis in earlier year; received as nominee; jointly owned with co-investor; principal portion not interest; pre-tax mismatch |
4.29 Sale of land or building | Inherited; gifted; jointly owned (with cost-allocation percentage); section 50C deeming applicable / not applicable; transferred under section 47 (no transfer) |
4.30 Receipts from transfer of immovable property | Already declared in 4.29; consideration revised post-agreement; advance forfeited; relates to part-payment instalment |
4.47 Purchase of immovable property | Inherited; gifted; jointly purchased with cost-allocation; reinvestment of capital gain under section 54 / 54F / 54EC |
4.48 Purchase of vehicle | Personal use; business use; leased to employer; partly funded by loan |
4.49 Purchase of time deposits | Source: own funds / loan / matured deposit rollover / family transfer / sale-of-asset proceeds |
4.50 Purchase of securities and units of mutual funds | Source: own funds; inherited; gifted; corporate action (rights / bonus); transfer between own demat accounts |
4.36 Goods and Services Tax turnover | Branch-transfer adjustments; Schedule III items; financial credit notes; advance receipts |
4. Common Scenarios and the Right Response
Scenario 1 -- Joint-Account Interest Mis-Tagged
Mr. X and his wife hold a joint fixed deposit. The bank deducted Tax Deducted at Source under section 194A on the gross interest and reported the entire amount under Mr. X's Permanent Account Number. The spouse already declared 50% of the interest under the customary first-holder convention. Mr. X's Annual Information Statement shows full interest; spouse's Annual Information Statement shows nothing.
Right response: Mr. X selects 'Information relates to other Permanent Account Number / Year' and specifies the spouse's Permanent Account Number with the 50% allocation. The system re-routes 50% of the entry to the spouse's Annual Information Statement. Both returns then reconcile.
Scenario 2 -- Sale of Property as Co-Owner
Mrs. Y co-owned a flat with her brother, sold it during the year for rupees one crore. The sub-registrar reported the full sale value under Mrs. Y's Permanent Account Number because she was the first signatory on the sale deed. Her brother's Annual Information Statement shows nothing.
Right response: Mrs. Y uses the customised feedback in 4.29 -- 'Jointly owned' with cost-allocation 50%. This re-allocates rupees fifty lakh to her and rupees fifty lakh to her brother (whose Permanent Account Number is provided). She also attaches the sale deed proof in her file. Her brother receives the corresponding Annual Information Statement update; both compute their capital gain on rupees fifty lakh each.
Scenario 3 -- Duplicate Dividend Reporting
Mr. Z received a dividend of rupees twenty-five thousand. The company filed Form 26Q (Tax Deducted at Source statement) and the registrar filed Form 61A (Specified Financial Transaction return). Both entries appear in Mr. Z's Annual Information Statement under category 4.3.
Right response: The system's deduplication rule should automatically flag the lower-value entry. If it has not, Mr. Z selects 'Information is duplicate / included in other information' on the duplicate entry. The Taxpayer Information Summary aggregates only the canonical entry. The dividend is taxed once, not twice.
Scenario 4 -- Phantom Securities Sale
Mr. P's Annual Information Statement shows an off-market debit of rupees four lakh in category 4.33 -- a transfer of shares from his demat account that he did not authorise. He suspects identity-theft or a depository-side error.
Right response: Mr. P selects 'Information is denied' on the entry. He simultaneously files a complaint with the depository participant, lodges a police First Information Report if identity-theft is suspected, and writes to the depository (National Securities Depository Limited or Central Depository Services Limited) seeking the source of the entry. The Annual Information Statement system routes the denial to the depository for confirmation. If the depository confirms the entry stands, Mr. P has the police complaint as evidence to escalate further. If the depository can not substantiate it, the entry is reversed.
Scenario 5 -- Year-Mismatch on Term Deposit Interest
Ms. Q follows the accrual method on her fixed deposit interest -- she offered the rupees fifty thousand interest accrued during Tax Year 2025-26 in that year's return. The bank, however, reported the entire credit (rupees one lakh, including last year's accrual plus current year's accrual) in Tax Year 2026-27 because that is the year of credit.
Right response: Ms. Q uses the customised feedback in 4.6 -- 'Already declared on accrual basis in earlier year' -- with a working showing rupees fifty thousand offered in Tax Year 2025-26 and rupees fifty thousand attributable to Tax Year 2026-27. She attaches the prior year's return computation as evidence. The Modified Value updates to rupees fifty thousand in the current year's Taxpayer Information Summary.
Scenario 6 -- Goods and Services Tax Turnover Mismatch
Mr. K's firm reported rupees three crore Goods and Services Tax turnover under Form GSTR-3B. His income-tax return shows business turnover of rupees two crore fifty lakh. The mismatch is because of inter-state branch transfers (taxable supply for Goods and Services Tax, internal transfer for income tax) and a year-end revenue cut-off difference.
Right response: Mr. K uses the customised feedback in 4.36 -- 'Branch-transfer adjustments rupees thirty lakh; Schedule III sale of land rupees fifteen lakh; revenue-recognition cut-off difference rupees five lakh' -- with a structured reconciliation note as evidence. The Modified Value reflects the income-tax turnover. The reconciliation note is also kept in the closing file as section 143(1)(a) defence.
5. The Source-Confirmation Cycle
When the feedback is one of the binary options ('correct', 'duplicate', 'other Permanent Account Number / Year') the processing is largely automatic. When the feedback is 'Information is denied' or 'Information is not fully correct' with a material reduction in value, the system routes the feedback to the original Source for confirmation. The Source can either confirm the taxpayer's correction (in which case the Modified Value stands), deny the correction (in which case the original Reported Value is restored, and a flag is raised for the assessing officer's attention), or remain silent (in which case the system applies a default rule, typically retaining the Modified Value if the silence persists beyond the stipulated period).
Step | Time-line | Action |
|---|---|---|
1. Taxpayer submits feedback | Day 0 | Submission Reference Number is generated and saved in the AIS feedback log |
2. Risk-management screening | Day 0 to Day 2 | System classifies as low-risk or high-risk; low-risk feedback flows through without Source confirmation |
3. Source-confirmation request (if high-risk) | Day 3 onwards | Source receives the feedback summary on its reporting portal |
4. Source response window | 7 to 30 days | Source confirms, denies or remains silent |
5. Modified Value finalised | Day 30 to Day 45 | Annual Information Statement updates; taxpayer should re-download to confirm |
6. Pre-fill the return | After Modified Value is finalised | Use the Taxpayer Information Summary for pre-filling |
Plan the timeline If the feedback cycle takes thirty to forty-five days, the practitioner needs to start the Annual Information Statement reconciliation by mid-June for a 31 July return-filing deadline, or mid-August for a 31 October tax-audit deadline. Last-minute feedback in the final week leaves no time for the Source cycle to complete, and the return is filed against the un-modified Reported Value -- which in turn invites a section 143(1)(a) intimation. |
6. Documentation Discipline -- What to Save
Feedback alone is not enough. The taxpayer must retain the supporting documentation in the file -- otherwise the assessing officer in a subsequent enquiry has no way to verify that the correction was substantively right. The documentation discipline is the same for an individual taxpayer and a corporate client; only the volume of evidence differs.
Feedback Type | Supporting Evidence to Retain |
|---|---|
Information is correct | Bank statement, broker statement or other source document tallying with the Reported Value |
Information is not fully correct (value adjusted) | Worked computation showing why the original was higher (gross-vs-net, period mismatch, deduplication); supporting source document for the corrected figure |
Information relates to other Permanent Account Number / Year | Joint-holder consent letter or marriage certificate (for spouse) or birth certificate (for minor); allocation working; the other holder's Permanent Account Number |
Information is duplicate | Identification of the canonical entry; brief note explaining why the flagged entry is duplicative |
Information is denied | Bank statement showing absence of the credit; police First Information Report (if identity-theft); correspondence with the Source; any rebuttal letter from the Source |
Customised feedback | Category-specific evidence -- inheritance proof (succession certificate / probate / death certificate), gift deed, sale deed, joint-purchase agreement, reinvestment proof, Goods and Services Tax reconciliation working, etc. |
7. Escalation -- What If the Feedback Is Unresolved
If the Source confirms the original entry against the taxpayer's denial or correction, the Modified Value reverts to the Reported Value. The taxpayer is left with three escalation routes.
Escalation Route | When to Use | Format |
|---|---|---|
Re-submit feedback with stronger evidence | If the first round was denied because the Source had not received documentary support | Same Annual Information Statement portal; choose 'Information is denied' or 'Information is not fully correct' again with attached evidence |
Approach the Source directly | If the Source's reporting was demonstrably wrong (clerical mis-Permanent-Account-Number, mis-quantum) | Letter or email to the bank, broker, registrar, sub-registrar; request a revised Specified Financial Transaction return / Tax Deducted at Source statement |
Address it in the return computation | If the cycle did not complete before the filing deadline | File the return with the corrected figure; attach a note in the response file; expect a section 143(1)(a) intimation and respond within thirty days with the documented working |
Take it to the assessing officer / Joint Commissioner | If the section 143(1)(a) addition is unjust | File a rectification application under section 154; if dismissed, appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) |
Don't ignore an Annual Information Statement entry The single worst response to a wrong Annual Information Statement entry is to ignore it. Once the Reported Value is in the Taxpayer Information Summary and the return omits it, the section 143(1)(a) processing engine will add it to total income automatically. Reversing that addition through rectification or appeal is far more time-consuming than submitting feedback in the original window. |
8. Time-Limits to Remember
Action | Time-limit | Source |
|---|---|---|
Submit Annual Information Statement feedback for an assessment year | Effectively, before the return-filing due date for that year (so feedback can flow into the Taxpayer Information Summary before pre-filling) | Procedural -- not statutory; once the return is filed, post-filing feedback does not change the filed return |
Respond to a section 143(1)(a) intimation arising from Annual Information Statement mismatch | Thirty days from the date of receipt | Sub-section (1)(a) of section 143 |
File a rectification application under section 154 | Four years from the order sought to be rectified | Sub-section (7) of section 154 |
Respond to a section 148A show-cause | Typically two weeks (specified in the notice) | Sub-section (1)(b) of section 148A |
File an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) | Thirty days from the order, with condonation up to 30 days more | Sub-section (2) of section 249 |
9. Case Law Reference and Anticipatory Legal Analysis
Case Law Reference: Wrong, incomplete or duplicate AIS information The AIS feedback mechanism under the Central Board of Direct Taxes notification framework allows the assessee to challenge any incorrect entry. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai in [VERIFY: confirm Tribunal citation on AIS-correction proceedings] addressed the operational framework and the income-tax department's response timeline. [VERIFY: cross-check specific Tribunal citations in the BharatTax case-law database.] |
Prospective Interpretation -- The reporter-correction architecture Two unsettled interpretive issues. (i) Treatment of duplicate entries -- where the same transaction is reported by two reporters (e.g., bank and mutual fund), AIS may double-count; the assessee submits feedback to delete the duplicate. (ii) Treatment of mis-categorised entries -- where a salary entry is mis-classified as interest, the assessee submits feedback to re-categorise; the income-tax department's response is variable. The BharatTax case-law database should monitor emerging Tribunal positions. [VERIFY: confirm Tribunal decisions emerging on the AIS-feedback framework.] |
10. Key Takeaways
- Wrong, incomplete or duplicate Annual Information Statement entries are common -- joint-account mis-tagging, dual-source duplication, accrual-vs-receipt year-mismatch, joint-property mis-allocation, identity-theft, and Goods and Services Tax-Income Tax cut-off differences.
- The six feedback options each have a specific use-case; choosing the right option avoids unnecessary risk-management flags.
- The customised feedback library, expanded in Handbook v4.1.0 (February 2026), provides structured sub-options for the categories where the most common reconciliation issues arise.
- High-risk feedback (denial, large modification) triggers a 7-to-30-day Source-confirmation cycle -- start the reconciliation by mid-June for a July 31 deadline.
- Documentation discipline is essential -- save bank statements, joint-holder consent, succession certificate, gift deed, sale deed, reconciliation worksheets and feedback acknowledgements in a structured client file for at least eight assessment years.
- If the feedback cycle does not resolve before the filing deadline, file the return with the corrected figure, retain the documentation, and respond to the inevitable section 143(1)(a) intimation within thirty days.
- Never ignore an Annual Information Statement entry -- the section 143(1)(a) auto-addition is far harder to reverse than the feedback is to submit.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only. It does not constitute tax / legal advice. Please consult a qualified Chartered Accountant or tax practitioner for advice specific to your circumstances. The legal position is current as of FA 2024 (No. 2) / FA 2025; subsequent amendments and CBDT notifications may modify the position.