Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) with a delay of 1861 days. The assessee had sought rectification of assessment order, claiming an error in the valuation of jewellery declared under VDIS. The assessee had filed a rectification application u/s.154, which was rejected.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after the assessee provided a plausible affidavit. The Tribunal held that the error in valuation was rectifiable and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the new valuation report and grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the error in the valuation report is rectifiable.
Sections Cited
143(3), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Sambalpur, Camp at Bhubaneswar, dated 04.11.2019 passed in Appeal No.0519/2015-16 for the assessment year 1998-1999. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 1861 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the present appeal, which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 1861 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessment had originally been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. In the course of assessment, valuation of the jewellery declared by the assessee under the VDIS, was wrongly computed, insofar as the valuation report was wrongly given. It was the submission that the assessee had filed an application u/s.154 of the Act and the same was rejected on the ground that the there was no mistake apparent from the record. It was the submission that the error in the valuation was rectifiable. It was the prayer that the Assessing Officer may be directed to reconsider the application u/s.154 of the Act after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the roder of the ld.AO and ld.CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the error mentioned by the assessee in the rectification application is in regard to the valuation report submitted by the assessee. The assessee admits that there is an error on the valuation. This being so, I am of the view that he AO should re-examine the new valuation report submitted and if there is an actual error, it should be considered, insofar as arithmatical errors are rectificable in a rectification application. With the above directions, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication of the rectification application after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/09/2025.