Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2012-13. Based on AIR information, a notice under section 148 was issued. Despite further notices, the assessee failed to file a return or provide details. The Assessing Officer (AO) added capital gains of Rs. 35,00,200/- and Rs. 22,10,884/- under section 50C, totaling Rs. 57,11,080/-. Subsequently, the AO rectified the order under section 154, deleting the Rs. 22,10,884/- addition, revising the total income to Rs. 35,11,084/-.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeal was against a rectification order passed under section 154. According to the mandate of section 154, only mistakes apparent from the record can be rectified. The Tribunal, citing Supreme Court judgments, stated that mistakes apparent must be obvious and patent, not requiring extensive reasoning or examination of facts/law. The rectification sought, except for the double addition, did not qualify as mistakes apparent from the record. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal against the rectification order, as the grounds raised were not mistakes apparent from the record, except for the deleted double addition?
Sections Cited
250, 148, 142(1), 50C, 144, 147, 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:
This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 12.12.2024 by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13.
Grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment of total income made by the L.d. AO by issuing notice u/s 148 without application of judicious mind, recording of proper reasons and without taking appropriate permissions;
2. The Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assessment of total income made by the Ld. AO disregarding the fact that the notice was not served on the assessee within specified time limit. Therefore, the whole proceeding is time barred;
3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment of total income made by the Ld. AO by neither taking into consideration submissions made by /AY.2012-13 Prakashbhai Manchharam Mistry the assessee nor verifying data available in public domain and circulars of the department relevant to the issue before passing order u/s 144 rws 147; 4. The Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assessment of total income made by the Ld. AO by not considering the fact that the plot of land sold is beyond the specified limits of 8 Kms. and hence was not liable to capital gains. Therefore Section 50C is also not applicable.
5. The Hon'ble CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assessment of total income made by the Ld. AO by calculating new Ready Reckoner rate as on the date of execution of sale deed. RR rate should have been considered as on the date of first payment described in the sale deed.
The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment of total income made by the Ld. AO by passing order u/s 154 without taking into consideration other grounds of appeal
and only deleting duplicated income.
7. The assessee craves leave to add, alter delete any ground(s) of appeal either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for AY 2012-13. Based on the AIR information that assessee had deposited cash in his bank account, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued. However, the assessee did not file his return of income nor submitted any details. Therefore, show cause notice was issued wherein Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) proposed to add capital gain of Rs.35,00,200/- and Rs.22,10,884/- u/s 50C of the Act. Again, the assessee failed to make any submission. Therefore, the AO added undisclosed capital gain of Rs.35,00,200/- and also made addition of Rs.22,10,884/- u/s 50C of the Act (total income of Rs.57,11,080/-) by passing order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22.10.2019. Subsequently, assessee requested for rectification stating that the AO has made addition twice u/s 50C of the Act. The AO vide order u/s 154 of the Act dated /AY.2012-13 Prakashbhai Manchharam Mistry 02.07.2021, revised the order by deleting addition of Rs.22,10,884/- u/s 50C of the Act and revised the total income to Rs.35,11,084/- against Rs.57,11,080/-.
4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the appellate order was against the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act, deleting only the duplicate addition of income and not considering the other grounds of application u/s 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) reproduced the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act at 5.3 of the appellate order. He found that the grounds except the ground of double addition of Rs.22,10,884/- are not mistakes apart from record. Therefore, he upheld the order of AO who has duly deleted the addition of Rs.22,10,884/-.
5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book giving various details submitted before the AO/CIT(A). He submitted that the AO did not consider the submission of the assessee before passing the order. The AO also made addition on issues other than the issues for which the case was re-opened.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) of the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He submitted that the appellant filed appeal against the order u/s 154 of the Act. Only mistakes apparent from record could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. The AO has rightly revised the income by reducing Rs.22,10,884/-, which was a double addition u/s /AY.2012-13 Prakashbhai Manchharam Mistry 50C of the Act. The other grounds are not mistake apparent from record, which could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. The CIT(A), therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Undisputedly, the appeal was against rectification order of AO, passed u/s 154 of the Act. As per the mandate of section 154 of the Act, only mistake apparent from the record can be rectified by the AO. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram vs. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50 (SC) held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something, which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., 228 ITR 463 (SC) held that a point which was not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt as mistake apparent on the record. Similarly, in case of CIT vs. Keshri Metals Pvt. Ltd., 237 ITR 165 (SC), it was held that reference to documents outside the records and the law is impermissible when applying the provisions of section 154 of the Act. We find that the rectification sought by the appellant, except the double addition of Rs.22,10,884/- u/s 50C of the Act, were not mistakes apparent from record but pertain to facts and questions of law. Hence, these were outside the purview of the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A), who rightly dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed.