Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessment for AY 2008-09 was completed with an addition of Rs. 1,99,90,950/-, but an erroneous figure of Rs. 1,14,95,000/- was inadvertently recorded. The AO issued a notice u/s 154 r.w.s. 155 to rectify this mistake. Simultaneously, the assessee also filed a rectification application for the non-allowance of carried forward losses/depreciation.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the rectification made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), concluding that the correction of the addition amount from Rs. 1,14,95,000/- to Rs. 1,99,90,500/- was an apparent mistake from the record, rectifiable under section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities, thereby dismissing the assessee's appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's rectification under section 154 to increase the addition for alleged share capital, and whether this rectification was a mistake apparent from the record made without providing adequate opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
153A(1)(b), 143(3), 154, 155
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK
Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Surender pal, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 24.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 28.10.2024 ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal-2, Gurgaon dated 07.06.2023, relating to assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 1,99,90,500/- instead of addition of Rs. 1,14,95,000/- made in original assessment order u/s. 153A dated 26.3.2015 on account of alleged share capital allegedly received by the company and in the proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act that too without giving any opportunity of hearing.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in passing the impugned order u/s. 154 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice and by recording incorrect facts. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessment in this case was completed on 26.03.2015 u/s. 153A(1)(b) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act at an assessed income of Rs. 1,14,95,000/- taking a NIL return of income. As per AO, while completing the assessment in this case, an addition of Rs. 1,99,90,950/- was discussed and thus the addition of the said amount was made in the income of the assessee. Whereas a figure of Rs. 1,14,95,000/- was picked up inadvertently and thus the income of the assessee was computed erroneously. Accordingly, a notice dated 07.04.2015 u/s. 154 r.w.s. 155 of the Act was served upon the assessee proposing a rectification as under:- “On Perusal of assessment records in your case, it is seen that while completing the said assessment a figure of Rs. 1,14,95,000/- was picked up inadvertently instead of Rs. 1,99,90,950/- as discussed under para 3 of the assessment order dated 26.03.2015. The same is required to be amended u/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961.” In the meanwhile the assessee has also moved an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act stating therein that while framing the assessment order benefit of carried forward losses/ depreciation was not allowed.
The assessee vide its reply dated 21.05.2015 has submitted that an appeal against the order has already been filed before the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon and that is quite hopeful of the relief. Therefore, we cannot agree with the proposed addition as per your notice. The reply of the assessee was duly considered, on the basis of the information available on records and as per AO it is clear that the figure was wrongly picked up and in the body of the said assessment order the issue has thoroughly been discussed, thereby the proposed addition was nothing but a mistake apparent from records which has been rectified. On the issue of the application u/s. 154 of the Act filed by the assessee, it was observed while going through the contents of the application and the assessment records of the assessee that it is mistake apparent from records, can be rectified.
Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s order by observing as under:- “I have gone through the facts of the case and grounds of appeal
. There is only one effective ground of appeal regarding rectification u/s. 154 made to alter the figure of addition made by the Assessing Officer. From a perusal of the assessment order, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer has correctly rectified the wrong figure of addition which was inadvertently taken to be Rs. 1,14,95,000/-, when it should have actually been Rs. 1,99,90,500/-. Therefore, there is no weight in appellant’s grounds and the same are dismissed.”
4. Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us.
5. We have heard the Ld. DR. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, we are adjudicating the issue in dispute by hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. We find that AO has noted that while completing the assessment, he has discussed the issue of addition of Rs. 1,99,90,950/-, but inadvertently made the addition of Rs. Rs. 1,14,95,000/-, hence, vide an order passed u/s. 154 of the Act, the AO has sought to correct the mistake. In the entire submissions made by the assessee, it is nowhere disputed that AO has wrongly picked up the figure and the correct amount is Rs. 1,99,90,500/-. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, it is an apparent mistake from record and the authorities below have rectified the mistake u/s. 154 of the Act and passed the order. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below and uphold the same by rejecting the grounds raised by the assessee.
6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed.