How many judgments cite T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.?

382 judgments on BharatTax cite T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. (82 ITR 50), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 154, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 153A, Section 69, Section 263.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50Supreme Court of India1971#194 most cited

What is T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. authority for?

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

382

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Bros. · 82 ITR 50 · Section 154 · mistake apparent from record · rectification · obvious and patent mistake · change of opinion · scope of rectification · long drawn reasoning

Sections most often in play

Section 154 Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 153A Section 69 Section 263 Section 245D(4)Section 245D(6B)

Issues it is cited on

mistake apparent from record rectification u/s 154 mistake apparent on record section 154 change of opinion regular assessment section 15 section 24 section 234 section 23 income-tax officer previous year

Judgments citing T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 79/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…t and obvious from record that a recourse for seeking rectification of the said mistake u/s.154 of the Act is allowed. My aforesaid view is supported by the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after deliberating at length on the scope and gamut of Section 154 of the Act had observed as under: “From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether S.17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-ta…

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 108/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…parent and obvious from record that a recourse can be sought for rectification of the said mistake u/s.154 of the Act. My aforesaid view is supported by the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after deliberating at length on the scope and gamut of Section 154 of the Act had observed as under: “From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether S.17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore the Income-ta…

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Sri. Sanjay Ramprakash Saxena, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Sanjay Ramprakash Saxena, Dcit, G1, Smr Devmuk Cpc, Sy. No.97/104, 9Th Main, Vs. Bengaluru. Bannerghatta Road, Vijaya Bank Layout, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aozps 7209 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Bharath Shetty, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 10Section 10(13)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 17(2)Section 250Section 80CSection 80D

…r section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved from the above order passed by the CPC, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), after relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T S Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) reported in 82 ITR 40 (SC) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that the issues raised by the assessee are not covered under section 154 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal on 15.03.2023 on the dealy of 192 days. The affidavit from previous Authorized Representative has been obtained dated 19.04.2023 wh…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3574/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaaddl. Cit Vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd. Special Range-6, Core-1, Scope Complex, Room No. 352, Lodhi Road, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 43B

…gned order dated 31.03.2016, which was invalid on that date. 5.1 In support of the contentions that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record, the Ld. Counsel relied the judgments in T.s.Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50(SC) and CIT v. Hero Cycles P. ltd. 228 ITR 463 (SC), Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. ITO 109 ITR 43 (Ker), Maharana Mills Pvt. Limited v. ITO 36 ITR 350 (SC, CIT v. Delhi Cement Stockists 81 ITR 515 (Del.) and Nirmal Udyog v. CIT 232 ITR 493 (MP). Bombay High Court in the case of Universal Medicare (P) Ltd.: 324 ITR 263. 5.2 He submitted that the co-ordi…

ITO, Ward-5(3), Hyderabad vs. Shri Brij Gopal P Shah, HUF, Hyderabad

ITA 1606/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C.P. RamaswamyFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 154Section 158BSection 158CSection 246A(1)

…he Apex Court in the case of Mepco Industries Ltd (219 ITR 208) that order under section 154 is not possible wherever facts are to be examined. 17. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the principle laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Volkarts Brothers (82 ITR 50) that mistake must be obvious and patent-not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be two opinions. 18. The learned CIT(A) erred in observing an issue relating to jurisdiction can be raised at any time by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Mo…

ITO, Ward-5(3), Hyderabad vs. Shri Krishna Kumar D Shah, HUF, Hyderabad

ITA 1605/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C.P. RamaswamyFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 154Section 158BSection 158CSection 246A(1)

Siddhant Machindra Mhaske, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 318/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Pune02 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234A

…in law and on facts in initiating sec.154 rectification proceedings on such a debatable issue of validity of the assessee’s former return dated 08.02.2013 which is not sustainable in law as per T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart 8 ITA.No.318/PUN./2023 Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). The assessee’s former return dated 08.02.2013 was very much a valid one u/s.139(9A) read with Explanation(c)(i) thereto as per this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd., vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1991] 39 ITD 269 (Del.) and, therefore, both the lower authorities have wrongly held the same as a d…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Essel Minning & Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3160/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit Cc-1(4), M/S Essel Minning & 902, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Industries Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg. 18Th Floor, Industry House, (Annexe), M.K. Road, 10, Cama Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. Pan No. Aaaci 1747 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. Sukanya Jayaram/ Mr. Karan Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Somogyan Pal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mrs. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. CIT CC-1(4), M/s Essel Minning & 902, 9th Floor, Pratishtha Industries Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, Old CGO Bldg. 18th floor, Industry House, (Annexe), M.K. Road, 10, Cama Street, Mumbai-400020. Kolkata-700017. PAN No. AAACI 1747 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. Sukanya Jayaram/ Mr. Karan Jain, AR Revenue by : Mrs. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR : Date of Hearing 02/03/2023 Date of pronouncement : 18/04/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish & Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 3(1)(2), Vs. M/S Hikal Ltd Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 717/718, Maker Aayakar Bhavan, Chambers V, Mumbai – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach0383A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.Cit Dr Respondent By : Sri.Sanjay Parikh.Ar Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.CIT DRFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Parikh.AR

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 154

…the order under appeal withdrawing the deduction allowed by the AO assessing Respondent. No proceedings u/s. 154 can be taken where issue is debatable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: a) T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). b) CIT v. Nathpa Khakri Joint Venture (2013) 358 ITR 233 (Bom) at page 236 c) Lakshmi Card Clothing Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 98 taxmann.com 445 (Mad) d) Sandeep Bhargava (HUF) v. CIT (2020) 83 ITR (Trib.) 217 (Chd.) 9) Hence, even on this count, CIT(A's) order needs to be confirmed. Respondent had vide reply to notice Hikal Ltd.Mumb…

ACIT Circle-1(3)(1), Int. Tax., New Delhi vs. Rajan Govil, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7525/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 7525/Del/2019 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54

…sue involved in this case is highly debatable and therefore, the same is not covered by the provisions of section 154 of the Act. In this regard, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of T.S.Balram Vs. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50(SC). The appellant highlighted following facts to impress upon that the issue is debatable: a) The appellant purchased the flat in the residential project of M/s IREO VICTORY VALLEY PVT LTD vide agreement dated 05.07.2011 attached on page (16-44 of Ann 'A'). An examination of the same would reveal that the Builder was yet to construct the flat. T…

Bhawani Chem, Jaipur vs. Assesing Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 116Section 143(1)Section 154

…ectifiable but then the mistake should be apparent from the record. There are a catena of case laws on this aspect, wherein it has been emphasized that mistake must be obvious and patent. Some of them are quoted below: 1. TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. Ors. 82 ITR 50(SC) Mistake must be obvious and apparent. - not something which can be established by a long M/S. BHAWANI CHEM VS ITO drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be two opinions. 2 CIT vs Lakshmi Prasad Lahkar [11996) 220 ITR 100 Gauhati)]- Mistake means commission that is not designed and which is obvious and something which has no tw…

DCIT- CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 234ASection 234B

…irah Dekor Pvt. Ltd., “Ground No.1 & 2: Addition for difference in Purchases & Sales Rs.7,54,32,365/- A.O. Para 3.1 Page-2 CIT(A) Para- 11 Page-25 to 27 A) No mistake much less mistake apparent from record to make addition at Rs.7,54,32,365/-. Reliance on: i) 82 ITR 50 (SC) T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers & Ors B) A.O. noted in order u/s 154 dated 18/05/2018 at para 3.1 that assessee has made purchases from M/s. Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.18,71,63,322/- and the sales were made to M/s.Ecospace International Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.26,25,95,687/- Assessee had failed to prove the genuinenes…

Petronet Mhb Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.G Vinay Simha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayana, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

…him and again on the same documents, it amounts to review of his own order, which is not permissible under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and he also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TS Balaram ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 [SC]. He further relied on the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal at para 47 in the case of Bosch Ltd., in ITA No.1629/Bang/2018 vide dated 01.09.2022. 6. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and he submitted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not wholly and exclusively for the purp…

Gopuri Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7170/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 35Section 35ASection 80Section 80G

…entities claiming exemption under section 11, the income is not included in total income. 4.6 Section 154 provides for rectification of mistake which is apparent from record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers & others [(SC) 82 ITR 50] have held that mistake must be obvious and patent and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be two opinions. In die case of Hotz Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 118 Taxman 94 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Court have held that- "5. A bare look at section 154 makes it clear that a mis…

M/S. Birla Edutech Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(18)Section 3Section 79

…of the Act [by disallowing the loss by invoking Section 79 of the Act as mistake apparent from record while passing the order u/s 154 of the Act], the Ld. AR cited various case laws viz. Vtkart Brother and others 6 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. Birla Edutech Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) and Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. (1998) 108 ITR 869 (Bom); and also he assailed the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) in not appreciating the fact and law involved in the issue i.e, since M/s. BSEL was a public company and holding 86.67% of the share of assessee company, section 79 of the Act was not applicable as held by the Hon’ble Jurisd…

Grasim Industries Ltd.(As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 216/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

…attributable to the assessee. The assessee had also made references to various judgments of Hon’ble Courts above, such as CIT vs South Indian Bank Ltd [(2012) 340 ITR 574 (Ker)], Ajanta Mtg Ltd vs DCIT [(2017) 391 ITR 33 (Guj)], and ITO vs Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)]. It was thus clearly a seriously contended issue as to whether or not the assessee was responsible for delay in refund of tax, and, as such, whether interest under section 244A could have been declined to the assessee at all. None of these submissions, however, had any impact on the Assessing Officer. He proceeded to withdraw the interest-as…

Grasim Industries Ltd.(As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC -1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 215/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

DCIT, Circle-1, Patna vs. M/S Alkem Laboratories Ltd, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 219/PAT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 250(6)Section 35

…t the assessee filed written submissions and also stated that the mistakes pointed out by the ld. AO are not apparent on record and in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balram Vs. Volkhart Brothers & Others reported in 82 ITR 50 no adjustments needs to be made. However, the ld. AO was not satisfied and completed the proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act by making addition(s) for provision for doubtful debts/advance at Rs.6,42,61,460/- and security transaction tax at Rs. 6,59,591/- and computed book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act at Rs. 266,95,55,331/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee…

Asst. CIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1355/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1355/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) Acit-1(3)(1), Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Limited. 3Rd Floor, Indl.Assurance Bldg. Jd Tata Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaact-6047-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Damor ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 04/01/2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Manufacturing & Selling Of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The 2 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,19,12,503/- On 30/09/2009. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 07/12/2011. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S. 154 Of The Act Dated 18/03/2013 To Rectify The Alleged Mistake In Assessment Order On Two Counts:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh DamorFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neelam Jadhav

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 154(7)Section 40

…fficer u/s.154 of the Act is debatable, therefore, it could not have been rectified u/s. 154 of the Act. In support of this contention the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) ITO vs. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.228 Taxman 184 (Bombay)(MAG). 4 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee raised an alternate argument that the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act is barred by limitation as specified u/s. 154(7) of the Act. As per the provisions of the Act, the limitation for initiating proceedings u/s. 154 of the A…