M/S SPACEWOOD FURNISHERS PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. DY. C.I.T. CENTRL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR

Assessee by: Shri Rachit Thakar (Adv.) Shri S.C. Thakar (Adv.) Revenue by : Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing: 25/04/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28 /04/2022 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. Brief facts of the case are that after the learned CIT(A)-3, Nagpur passed the consolidated order including that of A.Y.2010-11 on 27.10.2016, the Assessee filed an application u/s.154 of I.T.Act,1961 before CI(A)-3, Nagpur on 19.11.2016 stating that there was a mistake apparent on the face or record in his order dt.27.10.2016 in as much as the learned CIT(A) erred in retaining the addition of Rs.10,43,150/- in respect of alleged excess stock of raw material after his own finding accepting the submission of the Assessee as acceptable and holding that Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur as rightly pointed out by Assessee mere difference in valuation in the middle of the year will have no impact on the total income. Thus the retention of addition of Rs.10,43,150/- was contradictory to his own finding and the same constituted a mistake apparent on the face of record. Accordingly in application of Assessee u/s.154 the Assessee prayed for correction of this mistake and delete the said addition of Rs.10,43,150/- retained by him. However learned CIT(A) after quoting the Assessee’s application u/s.154 learned CIT(A) just held in one line stating that on perusal of the appellate order and Assessee’s application, it is held that there is no mistake apparent in the impugned order. Against the said order u/s.154 by CIT(A)-3, Nagpur dt.30.01.2017 Assessee is in appeal before us and has taken the following grounds :- “1] Learned C.I.T.(A)-III erred in rejecting the application U/s.154 of I.T.Act, 1961. 2] Learned C.I.T.(A)-III erred by not properly understanding the application, not applying his mind while considering the assessee’s application and prejudicially rejecting the application U/s.154. 3] Learned C.I.T.(A)-III erred in retaining the addition of Rs.10,43,150/-. 4] Appellant craves leave to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing, if necessary.”