VEETRAAG VANI TRUST REGSD, ,TIKAMGARH vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, , GWALIOR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) confirmed the rectification order, holding that the fresh claim made by the assessee was beyond the scope of Section 154, as it was not made or examined in the original return or during processing under Section 143(1).
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a revised return of income claiming exemption under section 10(23)(iiiad) and sought rectification. The Assessing Officer rejected the rectification, stating there was no apparent mistake from the record.
What were the issues?
Whether the claim made in the revised return could be considered a "mistake apparent from the record" for rectification under Section 154.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of an order passed by of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] on 28-12-2022 in the matter of an rectification order passed by Ld. AO u/s 154 on 18-12-2020. It emerges that the assessee filed return of income at Rs.20.79 Lacs which was accepted u/s 143(1). The assessee revised return of income on 28-02- 2016 claiming exemption u/s 10(23)(iiiad) followed by rectification which was rejected on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from record. The rectification order was under challenge before Ld. CIT(A). In para 9.7 of impugned order, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the rectification order on the ground that the fresh claim so made by the assessee was beyond the scope of Sec.154. The claim was not made and examined at the stage of processing u/s 143(1) and the claim was not there in the original return of income. Therefore, it could not be said that there was mistake apparent from record. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
It is quite clear that the impugned claim was not made by the assessee in the original return of income. The return was already processed u/s 143(1). The assessee sought rectification by making a fresh claim. As rightly held by Ld, CIT(A), the fresh claim is clearly beyond the scope of Sec.154. Concurring with the same, we dismiss the appeal.
The appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026