SOMA BLOCKPRINT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 298/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 October 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the discrepancy in Form 29B, which was irreconcilable with the audited financial statements, indeed amounted to a mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a revised Form 29B, which was duly reconciled with the audited financial statements. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable and set it aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on the revised Form 29B, reconciled with the audited financial statements, in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that an error in a statutory form, which is inconsistent with the audited financials and can be corrected with a revised form, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, warranting rectification under Section 154. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Soma Blockprint Private Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Hyderabad, who confirmed the dismissal of a rectification application filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO) processed the assessee's return under Section 143(1)(a), making an adjustment of Rs. 1,35,040/-. This adjustment was based on a deemed income under Section 115JB of Rs. 2,25,11,855/-, which was higher than the Rs. 2,16,34,502/- claimed by the assessee. The assessee contended that the higher figure was mistakenly recorded by their Chartered Accountant in Form 29B. The AO dismissed the rectification application, and the CIT(A) upheld this decision. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the rejection of the application filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether the intimation dated 27.05.2020 should be rectified. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the figure of Rs. 2,25,11,855/- used by the CPC/AO for deemed income under Section 115JB was a mistake apparent on record. This figure was erroneously entered by the Chartered Accountant in Form 29B, and a revised Form 29B, reconciled with the audited financial statements, has been provided. They relied on the principle that rectification is permissible for mistakes apparent from the record. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, relying on the impugned order of the CIT(A), contended that the discrepancy was not a mistake apparent on record but rather negligence on the part of the assessee. They argued that the AO had passed a correct order based on the figures provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 115JB,Section 143(1)(a),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “B” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “B” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANCT MEMBER ITA No: 298/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Soma Blockprint Private Circle-1, Limited. Jaipur. Vs (Respondent) 2-B, soma House Girnar Extension, Khatipura, Jaipur. PAN: AACCS4392Q (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. R.S. Poonia, CA Revenue Represented: Mrs. Namita Patel, JCIT Date of hearing : 01-09-2026 Date of pronouncement : 27-10-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Soma Blockprint Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 Hyderabad [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] confirming the dismissal of rectification application by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act,

I.T.A No. 298/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Soma Blockprint Pvt. Ltd.

1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) qua assessment year 2019- 20 on the ground that:- “1. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the rejection of application u/s 154, Kindly direct to rectify the intimation dt. 27.05.2020. 2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 2. Briefly stated, facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : Assessee’s return of income was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act by the CPC/AO making adjustment of Rs. 1,35,040/- on the ground that deemed income of the assessee u/s 115JB of the Act was Rs. 2,25,11,855/- as against Rs. 2,16,34,502/- claimed in the return of income. It is brought on record by the assessee that CPC/AO picked up the figure of Rs. 2,25,11,855/- from Form 29B available at page 10 to 15 of the paper book, wherein his Chartered Accountant has mistakenly recorded this amount. The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before the AO, who has dismissed the same. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal, who has confirmed the rectification order passed by the AO. Being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld.

I.T.A No. 298/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Soma Blockprint Pvt. Ltd.

CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 4. We have heard Ld. ARs for the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 5. Undisputedly, return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) of the Act was processed by the CPC/AO and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was given raising a demand of Rs. 1,35,040/-. It is also not in dispute that the CPC/AO picked up the figure of Rs. 2,25,11,855/- from Form No. 29B as against the figure of Rs. 2,16,34,502/- as claimed in the return of income. Ld. AR for the assessee brought a fact on record that the figure of amount of Rs. 2,25,11,855/- taken by the CPC/AO has been wrongly mentioned by the Chartered Accountant in Form No. 29B while preparing report u/s 115JB of the Act. 6. No doubt CPC/AO has passed the order on the basis of figure provided by the assessee in its audited report, which is not a correct figure rather outcome of the mistake committed by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee. However, at the same time, the assessee has brought on record revised Form No. 29B available at page 16 to 22 of the paper book, which is duly reconciled with the audited

I.T.A No. 298/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Soma Blockprint Pvt. Ltd.

financial available at page 8-9 of the paper book. Ld. DR for the Revenue by relying upon the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) contended that it was not mistake apparent on record rather negligence on the part of the assessee on the basis of which correct order has been passed. 7. However we are of the considered view that when the mistake crept into Form 29B, which is irreconcilable with the audited financial it certainly amounts to mistake apparent on record as is evident from the revised Form 29B available at page 11 to 22 of the paper book and duly reconciled with audited financial available at page 8-9 of the paper book. So treating the same as mistaken apparent on record the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside being not sustainable in the eyes of law. The AO is directed to extend the relief to the assessee as per revised Form 29B duly reconciled with audited financial available on record in accordance with law. 8. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-10-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A No. 298/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Soma Blockprint Pvt. Ltd.

Jaipur Dated:- 27/10/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order, SANTOSH Digitally signed by Asst. Registrar/Sr.P.S. SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR MAURYA Date: 2026.10.28 MAURYA 09:52:30 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →