APACE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-1, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 643/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 September 2022AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order contained a clear computational mistake. Since such a mistake is rectifiable under Section 154, the Tribunal decided not to exercise its powers and remanded the matter back to the Pr. CIT for correction.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263. The Pr. CIT had directed an addition to the income based on a perceived deficit in a project, which the assessee argued was due to a clerical mistake in computation.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 due to a computational error, and whether the matter should be remanded for correction of this error.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. C. N. PrasadDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv, Shri Pushkar Pandey, Adv
For Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, CIT DR
Hearing: 14.09.2022Pronounced: 22.09.2022

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the ld. Pr. CIT, Delhi-1 dated 28.03.2021.

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That, the order of learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the I.T. Act is bad in law and is against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That, Id. PCIT has erred in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 on the basis that Id. AO failed to conduct enquiries and verification on the issue, though detailed enquiries are conducted on Page | 1 the issue and additions have already been made, which are pending before Id. CIT(A).

3. That, Id. PCIT erred on merits in directing to make an addition of Rs. 94,52,860 (2,61,23,620 - 1,66,70,760) which is only on a/c of a clerical mistake by not considering the correct figure of Rs. 1,37,38,732 instead of Rs. 2,61,23,620 as is erroneously mentioned by Id AO in reproducing the figures given by the assessee, which is apparent on the record and even duly explained before Id. PCIT.

4. That, Id PCIT erred in calculating a deficit of Rs. 94,52,860/- on the project of Royal Home Town which is disallowed though assessee himself has declared surplus of Rs. 29,32,028/-. As such after considering correct figure there is no loss to revenue.”

3.

The appeal against the order u/s 263 has been heard at length in regard to arguments put forward by both the parties. Core issues narrows down to computational mistake in the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT with regard to work in progress and determination of percentage completion method following in respect of projects of Royal Home Town and Ellora Infratech.

4.

The ld AR has succinctly brought out the fact that the correction of the computational mistake would result in a proposition that the order of the AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. The ld DR is fairly agreed that there is a mistake in computation. Hence, keeping in view the facts on record and the arguments, we are of the considered opinion and hold that the Tribunal need not exercise the power and authority to an issue which is prima facie rectifiable by the Pr. CIT u/s 154 and hence, the file is being remanded back to the Ld. Pr. CIT for correction of the computational mistake. Page | 2

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →