SYED IRFANUDDIN,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2-(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 101/HYD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 September 2021AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the rectification proceedings was not covered by the show cause notice. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 15,66,394/- was not sustainable and was deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer sought to rectify an assessment order under Section 154 to add Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). However, the rectification show cause notice mentioned an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-, while the actual addition made was Rs. 15,66,394/-.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition made in rectification proceedings under Section 154 can exceed the amount mentioned in the show cause notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Hearing: 26/08/2021Pronounced: 08/09/2021

This assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10 arises against the order of the CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad, dated 25.11.2020 passed in case No.10159/2019-20 in proceedings u/s 154 of the I.T. Act.

Heard both the parties and case file perused

2.

With the able assistance coming from both the parties, we notice at the outset that the Assessing Officer had invoked his section 154 rectification jurisdiction for reiterating LTCG addition of Rs.15,66,394/-. The Revenue’s case as per the facts on record is that the Assessing Officer had made the same in 143(3) assessment framed on 31.10.2014; which in turn, was upheld in the CIT (A)’s order dated 10.12.2014 followed by the consequential “giving effect” order in issue dated 22.3.2016 committing an apparent mistake by not adding the foregoing sum. It is vehemently contended from the departmental side that the Assessing Officer had omitted to make the impugned addition despite the fact of the same having been upheld for the CIT (A)’s lower appellate order.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →