RAJVI JEWELLERS,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 17.01.2025 passed for A.Y. 2017-18.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer passed a rectification order passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act (Act), in which the Assessing Officer rectified a clear mistake apparent from the record concerning the assessment of income for Assessment Year 2017- 18. The assessee had e-filed their return on 07.11.2017, declaring a total income of ₹1,21,24,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, Rajvi Jewellers vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– and a regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.12.2019, determining the assessed income at ₹3,20,34,149/-. During a survey under section 133A of the Act conducted on 09.09.2016, the assessee had admitted to an undisclosed income of ₹3,20,34,149/- on account of stock discrepancy, which was subsequently treated as unexplained stock and added as assessee’s income under section 69B of the Act, in the assessment order. However, upon review of the case records, the Assessing Officer observed that while this undisclosed income was assessed and taxed, the originally declared income of ₹1,21,24,288/- in the return of income filed by the assessee was inadvertently omitted from the computation in the assessment order. This omission by the Assessing Officer led to an underassessment of income by ₹1,21,24,288/-, resulting in a consequential short levy of tax amounting to ₹55,80,670/-. To rectify this, the Assessing Officer recomputed the total assessed income at ₹4,41,58,437/-, which included both the originally declared and the previously assessed unexplained income. Accordingly, the revised demand payable by the assessee stood at ₹2,72,00,914/-, for which a notice was issued to the assessee regarding the proposed rectification, but no response was received from the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to rectify the apparent mistake under section 154 of the Act.

In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal against the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act, by noting that the assessee had failed to make a valid case at all. The assessee had objected to the addition made by the Assessing Officer, arguing that the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was already under challenge. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that proceedings under sections 143(3) and 154 of the Act are independent of each other, and the rectification by the Assessing Officer, being valid and based on an apparent mistake, did not require further adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals). Before us, the Counsel for the assessee conceded that he had nothing to state in the matter and that both in facts as well as in law, there was no mistake on part of CIT(Appeals) in upholding rectification of original order, which contained a mistake apparent from record, requiring rectification u/s 154 of the Act.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 28/07/2025