ATUL KUMAR KALA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 30/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 August 2025AY 2017-186 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. Regarding the first ground concerning the Section 154 order being bad in law and barred by limitation, the Tribunal noted that while the AO claimed notice was served, there was no evidence to prove it, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and movement restrictions at the time. The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved a fair opportunity and granted one more opportunity, thus allowing the appeal on this procedural ground. On the second ground, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's alternative contention that the Section 154 order was incorrect. The addition of Rs. 4,04,706/- was made under Section 69C. The AO invoked Section 115BBE in the rectification order to tax this addition at 60% plus surcharge. However, the Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 115BBE, which mandated a 60% tax rate for income referred to in Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, and 69D, was effective from 01/04/2017. Since the transaction giving rise to the addition occurred in FY 2016-17 (AY 2017-18), the old provisions of Section 115BBE were in force. The AO incorrectly applied the amended provisions, making the rectification order incorrect and not in accordance with law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed ground No. 2. The third ground regarding interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not expressly decided as the appeal was allowed on other grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Atul Kumar Kala, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur Bench against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 20/12/2025, which upheld an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2017-18. The assessee had declared an income of Rs. 3,02,610/-. During assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition of Rs. 4,64,706/- under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure. Subsequently, the AO passed an order under Section 154 on 14/07/2021, invoking Section 115BBE to tax the addition at a higher rate, which the assessee had not challenged in the original assessment. The CIT(A) confirmed this rectification order. The amount in dispute relates to the additional tax liability arising from the invocation of Section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the actions taken thereunder are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void-ab-initio, for want of jurisdiction, and barred by limitation, as argued by the assessee. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of invoking Section 115BBE for taxing income at a higher rate through a Section 154 order, when this was not charged in the original assessment order nor was a show cause notice issued during assessment proceedings, as contended by the assessee. The assessee argued that debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 and relied on decisions in M/s. Motisons Jewellers Ltd. and Smt. Suraj Kanwar Devraa. The assessee also argued that the notice issued under Section 154 was not served, violating principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the AO erred in charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, with the assessee denying liability for such interest. The revenue, through the learned DR, argued in support of the CIT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 115BBE,Section 69C,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 68,Section 69,Section 69A,Section 69B,Section 69D,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH : JAIPUR

Before: DR. MANISH BO

This appeal at the instance of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2017-18 (A.Y.) is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 20/12/2025 framed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act').

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The impugned order u/s 154 dated 14.07.2021, as well as the action taken u/s 154 and notices are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void-ab-initio on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, and also barred by limitation and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed.

2. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action or order of the Id. AO of invoking of the provisions of Sec. 115BBE for taxing the income on higher rate by way of passing order u/s 154, which has not been charged in the assessment order nor any show cause notice was given during the assessment proceedings nor applicable. Thus erred in taking the income on higher rate. Hence the provisions of Sec. 115BBE so invoked and income so taxed at higher rate being absolutely, contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and not in 2 ITA.No.30/JPR/2025 (Atul Kumar Kala) conformity with the law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full.

3.

The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234 A,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.

4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and declared income of Rs. 3,02,610/- in the return of A.Y. 2017-18 filed on 28/02/2018. Based on the information about cash deposits in the credit card account, the assessee’s case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS after serving of valid notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished various details. Ld.AO concluded the proceedings making addition of Rs. 4,64,706/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act being the difference of amount of cash deposits shown by the assessee and the amount found as per the records available with Ld.AO. Thereafter, Ld.AO passed the order u/s. 154 of the Act observing that while concluding the assessment proceedings, he failed to invoke section 115BBE of the Act, as per which tax is payable @ 60% along with surcharge @25%, as the addition has been made for income referred to in section(s) 68/69/69A/69B/69C or 69D of the Act. The order u/s. 154 has been passed on 14/07/2021 and the same has been challenged before the Ld.CIT(A), but assessee failed to succeed.

4.

Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3 ITA.No.30/JPR/2025 (Atul Kumar Kala) 5. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to written submissions filed before the Ld.CIT(A) and further stated that notice issued u/s. 154 has not been served upon the assessee, thereby, no proper opportunity has been granted which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, placed reliance on various decisions mentioned in the written submissions including that of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Motisons Jewellers Ltd. in & 178/Jp/2022, dated 29/09/2022 and the decision of coordinate bench of Jodhpur in the case of Smt. Suraj Kanwar Devraa vs. ITO in dt 23/11/2021. It is further submitted that the debatable issues cannot be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act.

6.

On the other hand, learned DR vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld.CIT(A).

7.

I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. The first grievance of the assessee is that notice u/s. 154 of the Act has not been served upon the assessee. However, from going through the order u/s. 154 of the Act, Ld.AO has observed that notice u/s. 154 dated 20/04/2021 was served upon the assessee and an opportunity of being heard in this regard has been given to the assessee, but since there was no compliance, the order u/s. 154 has been passed. I note that notice of hearing has been sent on 20/04/2021 and at that point of time, our country was passing through Covid-19 pandemic and there were various restrictions for movements of the general public. There is no evidence to show that notice u/s. 154 of the Act has been served

4 ITA.No.30/JPR/2025 (Atul Kumar Kala) upon the assessee. Considering this aspect, the assessee deserves fair opportunity prior to being visited by additional tax liability. Though, the assessee has placed reliance on various decisions, but considering the fact about the Covid-19 pandemic, I deem it appropriate that the assessee succeeds on this ground and assessee deserves to be given one more opportunity.

8.

The assessee has also raised alternative contention in ground No.2 that the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act deserves to be set aside because only apparent mistake can be rectified and not debatable issues. In the instant case, the addition of Rs. 4,64,706/- has been made u/s. 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure. Now, no details have been filed before me as to whether the assessee has challenged the addition u/s. 69C of the Act. But admittedly, the addition has been made invoking section 69C and in the rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act, the Ld.AO has invoked section 115BBE of the Act, as per which the addition is subjected to tax rate @ 60% + surcharge @25% thereon. The instant appeal is for A.Y. 2017-18 i.e. for F.Y. 2016-17 and the period starts from 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017. The alleged unexplained expenditure is towards transaction carried out during the said period of F.Y. 2016-17. Section 115BBE of the Act was originally inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01/04/2013 but the amendment as per which income determined u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the Act shall be subject to 60%, has been brought in by taxation law by second amendment to Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01/04/2017. Now when the assessee

5 ITA.No.30/JPR/2025 (Atul Kumar Kala) carried out the alleged transaction giving rise to the impugned addition, the old provisions of section 115BBE of Act were in force. However, ld.AO has passed the rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act by invoking the amendment to the provisions of section 115BBE which are applicable from 01/04/2017 onwards. This action of the Ld.AO itself is incorrect and not in accordance with law. It, thus, clearly shows that the Ld.AO has not passed rectification order for rectifying an apparent mistake appearing from record and has wrongly invoked section 115BBE of the Act for charging the assessee with tax rate @60% along with surcharge of 25%. I, therefore, fail to find any merit in the rectification order passed by the Ld.AO. The impugned order is set aside and ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed.

9.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove.

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →