SURESH BABU CHALORAKANDY,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, 5(3)(5), BENGALURU
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN KAssessment Year: 2017-18
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, New Delhi dated 12/06/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/
2024-25/1065599748(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the learned
CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to ₹36,34,500 on account of cash deposits in the bank.
Page 2 of 4
.
3. Before addressing on the issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal, it is pertinent to take note of the different dates when the orders were passed, which are detailed below:
S.
No.
Particulars
Date of the Order
1. Assessment order
25 December 2019
2. Appeal to the Ld. CIT-A 24 January 2020
3. Order of the learned CIT(A)
12 June 2024
4. Rectification application against the order of the learned
CIT(A) dated 12 June 2024
19 August 2024
5. Order by the learned CIT(A) on rectification application
9 September 2024
6. Rectification application against the rectified order of the learned CIT(A)
21 October 2024
7. Order of the learned CIT(A) on the second rectification application
8 November 2024
All the above stated details are arising from the statement of facts filed by the assessee along with the memorandum of appeal which were not disputed by the ld. DR of the Revenue. Further, on perusal of Form 36 filed by the assessee, it is observed that the order under challenge is dated 8 November 2024, which is an order passed by the learned CIT(A) under section 154 read with section 250 of the Income Tax Act. It is a known fact that the scope of dispute in the appeal against a rectification order is limited to the extent of apparent mistakes.
Furthermore, upon examining the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we note that the assessee has challenged the addition made by the AO, which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) vide order dated Page 3 of 4
.
12 June 2024. However, the said order dated 12 June 2024 has not been challenged by the assessee. Upon confronting the learned AR
(Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the assessee with this fact, he could not controvert the same. As such, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that if the assessee is aggrieved, he should have preferred an appeal against the order of the learned
CIT(A) dated 12 June 2024. This, however, has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee against the rectification order of the learned CIT(A) dated 8-11-2024 is not maintainable. This position was also not disputed by the learned AR for the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that this appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
To avoid any ambiguity, we find it relevant to clarify that the remedy for the assessee is not available against the rectification order passed by the learned CIT(A) dated 8 November 2024, but rather against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) dated 12 June 2024. As such, the assessee is at liberty to file an appeal with appropriate contentions as per the provisions of law. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in court on 22nd day of May, 2025 (SOUNDARARAJAN K) Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 22nd May, 2025
/ vms /
Page 4 of 4
.
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file
By order
Asst.