DCIT CC 5(1), MUMBAI, BKC vs. JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& HON'BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PURUSETH,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3082 Mum [2025 (Assessment_Yeari 2022-23) DCIT CC 5 (1), Mumbai KautilyaBhavan BKC Mumbai 400051 Vs Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta Ritu Apartment, 7th Floor , Flat No _ 701 JVPD Scheme Road Nagar, Vileparle West Mumbai 400056 PAN / GIR No. AACPG2753N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Revenue by Dr K Shivram Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DRL Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.04.2026 3149 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN_JM: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act') by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, CIT(A) 53 , Mumbai for the assessment year 2 ITA No. 3082/Mum/2025 2022-23 The following grounds as raised by the Revenue are reproduced below: 81. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld_ CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made by the AO for Rs. 13,16,40,000/ - u/ s 69 of the Act on substantive basis by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that various corroborative evidences were found W.r t investment in gold in cash. 2 . Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld_ CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made by the AO for Rs.13,16,40,000/ u/ s 69 of the Act by holding that the AO is not justified in substituting the protective addition to substantive addition by passing the order u/ s 154 of the Act ignoring the facts that there was inadvertent typographical error in the order of the AO dated 31.03.2024 3 . The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing: 2 . As per the facts of the case the Assessee is the promoter of the company engaged in the business of infrastructure development. A search action u / s 132(1) of the Act had taken place on various prem ises of J Kumar Group on 11.10.2022 and subsequently , after the proceedings the order of assessment was passed u / s 143(3) of the Act thereby making additions. 3 _ Pursuant thereof the AO had passed another order u/s 154 r.W.S 143(3) of the Act thereby making addition u/s 69A of the Act by changing the protective addition, to substantive additions which was deleted by Ld_ CIT 5 ITA No. 3082/Mum/2025 (Appeal) and against the said order of Ld. CIT(Appeal) the Revenue has now preferred the present appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. Ground nos. 1and 2 4 Both the grounds raised by the revenue are interrelated and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) in deleting the addition made by the Ao Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order. 5 , We have heard the counsels for both parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before uS , and also the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities From the records, we noticed that the order of assessment in the present case was passed on 31.03.2024 which was challenged before Ld _ CIT (Appeal) and Ld_ CIT (Appeal) had passed an order on 24.06.2024 i.e. before the date of rectification order dated 12.09.2024, thus, from the records we notice that when the rectification order was passed by the AO on 12.09.2024 at that time the order of assessment dated 31.03.2024 was not in existence as Ld. CIT (Appeal) had already passed an order on 24.06.2024, thus, in this way the initial order of assessment was not in existence and was not surviving at the time of 4 ITA No . 3082/Mum/2025 rectification initiated by the AO , therefore, the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer was rightly held to be bad in law by Ld_ CIT (A)_ Even otherwise since the changing of protective addition to substantive addition as held by the AO is itself a debatable issue, there was n0 scope of Section 154 of the Act. In this regard reliance is being placed upon the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of T S Balaram, ITO V. Vollkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC); had held that; "A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reason on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of CIT U. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463/94 Taxman 271 (SC) that: "Rectification can only be made when a glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed by the officer passing the order and it becomes apparent from the record, and held that debatable issues cannot be rectified 6 Even otherwise n0 new facts or circumstances or documents have been placed on records by Ld. DR in order to controvert or rebut the lawful findings S0 recorded by the Ld_ CIT(A), therefore, we see n0 reasons 5 ITA No . 30 82/Mum/2025 to interfere into or to deviate from the findings So recorded by Ld_ CIT(A), hence we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue and uphold the order of Ld CIT(A) deleting the additions Thus ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 7 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenuestands dismissed, with no order as to cost. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.04.2026 / - / (BIJAYANANDA PURUSETH) AccOUNTANT MEMBER (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 16/04/2026 Ankit, PS 3 gjuafaft erfeda LCopy of the Order _forwarded_te 1. 3detreff The Appellant 2 Myeff The Respondent. 3 Hafed 31Ydv 31Ydd / The CIT(A) 4 314dr 31ddl ( &dat) Concerned CIT 5 faunfty waffu , 31yaor &dalty &feau , 3FE/ DR, ITAT; Mumbai 6 TITS 1TS&T Guard file. H1RITTRIBY ORDER; taifya wfa //l/ 34/ 7T4d toflar Asst. Registrar) 314d< 3rdficiy &ferdrur TFf ITAT, Mumbai