SURESH BABU CHALORAKANDY,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, 5(3)(5), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K (Judicial Member)4 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal against the rectification order was not maintainable, as the scope of such an appeal is limited to apparent mistakes, and the assessee was challenging the merits of the addition. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee's proper remedy was to appeal against the original order of the CIT(A) dated June 12, 2024. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with liberty granted to the assessee to file an appeal against the correct order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an addition of ₹36,34,500 confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of cash deposits. The appeal was specifically filed against a rectification order dated November 8, 2024, passed by the CIT(A) under Section 154 read with Section 250, rather than the original order confirming the addition dated June 12, 2024.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal against a rectification order under Section 154 is maintainable when the challenge is against the merits of an addition confirmed by an earlier original order of the CIT(A), and not against an apparent mistake in the rectification order itself.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya V Mudrabettu, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Hearing: 07.05.2025Pronounced: 22.05.2025

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

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.

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. Date of the Particulars No. 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 Rectification application against the order of the learned 4. CIT(A) 19 August 2024 dated 12 June 2024 5. Order by the learned CIT(A) on rectification application 9 September 2024 Rectification application against the rectified order 6. 21 October 2024 of the learned CIT(A) Order of the learned CIT(A) on the second 7. 8 November 2024 rectification application

3. 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.

4.

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 .

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.

5.

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.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in court on 22nd day of May, 2025

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →