“mistake apparent from record”

Rectification & RevisionSection 154Section 154700 judgments

The decision most relied on for mistake apparent from record is Kourani v. Union OF India (83 Taxmann.com 137), cited in 1,708 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mistake apparent from record

Kourani v. Union OF India

83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court

1,708

citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

305 ITR 227 · 2008 · Supreme Court

470

citing judgments

Non-consideration of a decision by a jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. However, non-consideration of a non-jurisdictional High Court decision does not typically amount to such a mistake.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court

382

citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.

228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court

262

citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

DIT v. Jacabs Civil Incorporated/ Mitsubhishi Corporation

330 ITR 578 · 2011 · High Court

115

citing judgments

Interest under Section 234B is generally not leviable on non-residents whose income is subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195, provided the non-resident assessee did not induce short or non-deduction of TDS by the payer.

CIT v. Aruna Luthra

252 ITR 76 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

Rectification under Section 154 is permissible based on a subsequent judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court. Such a judgment clarifies the law as it always stood, thereby revealing a mistake apparent from the record.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa

133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT

319 ITR 208 · 2009 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A mistake rectifiable under Section 154 must be obvious and apparent from the record, not one that requires a long process of reasoning or constitutes a mere change of opinion.

Judgments citing mistake apparent from record

St.Francis Xaviers Church, Kandakadavu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 789/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.N. Sreekumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

erred in law by disallowing the claim of the appellant u/s. 11(2) alleging violation of Sec. 11(5) without pointing out any mistake apparent from record. In doing so, they went beyond the powers granted to him u/s. 143(1). 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax Appeals erred

Aviaxpert Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 87/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.87/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Avia Xpert Pvt. Ltd. Ito, E-178, East Of Kailash, Vs. Ward 3(1), New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica7960L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 36(1)(va)

been held that claim of deduction made in ITR in respect of a debatable legal issue cannot be said to be a “mistake apparent from record” and, therefore, no disallowance in respect of such debatable legal claim can be made while passing rectification order ... petition, it is submitted that the respondent No.1 passed the rectification order u/s 154 with suo moto as I.T.A.No.87/Del/2024 there is a mistake apparent from record which did not require any show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Further, it is noticed that the order passed u/s 154 dated

Aadivasi Welfare Foundation, Jharkhand vs. Assessing Officer, Exemption Ward 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2870/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Venkata Anil, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 246Section 250

exemption in the intimation. In the absence of the audit report in Form No. 10B, it can’t be said that there was mistake apparent from record in the intimation as the Form No. 10B was uploaded much before. 13. We further deliberated upon Circular No. 2/2020 [F. NO. 197/55/2018-ITA-

Shree Piyushpani Sthapatya Sangrahalay Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3104/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Piyus Chaturvedi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 154

trust and establishment expenditures. 5. The assessee moved an application u/s 154 of the Act asking the JCIT(A) to rectify the mistake apparent on record but no action was taken by JCIT(A). 6. After considering the facts, we are of the considered view that, the JCIT(A) should ... decide the application and rectify the mistake apparent from record as soon as possible. Accordingly, both these appeals are restored back to the file of the JCIT(A), who is directed to take proper action and decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee

Kumkum Kavita Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalur, ITO-27(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4421/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: BEFORE, MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana - SR. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

denied to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed rectification application before the CPC stating therein that there was a mistake apparent from record in the intimation order u/s. 143(1) issued by the CPC as the deduction u/s. 80P (2)(d) was wrongly denied. The CPC, however, rejected the claim

Om Infra Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

ITA 811/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 801C(2)(b)Section 80I

considered as the law and further any action which is in contradiction of the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court is also considered a mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable under section 154 of the Act. This is settled law on Section 154. Even subsequent interpretation ... Supreme Court would constitute "mistake apparent from records". • B.V.K. Seshavataram Vs. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 633 (AP)) • ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) • Circular: No. 68 [F.No.245/17/71-A & PAC), dated 17-11-1971 6.8 In view of the above, the action

Alexis Global Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Delhi

ITA 2497/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 69C

only first page of the submissions of the assessee and not considered the rest of information submitted before him. Therefore, there is no mistake apparent from record. As far as assessee is concern, it has already proved the onus upon it by filing the relevant information before both the authorities

The Salestax Employees Co.Op. Credit Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 612/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 16-10-2023 In Din

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep G Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 253(3)

stated that the assessee made an application u/s. 154 of the 1961 Act with ld. CIT(A) on 18.11.2023 , as there was a mistake apparent from records in the appellate order dated 16.10.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... considered view that the assessee bonafidely filed its rectification application u/s 154 of the 1961 Act with ld. CIT(A) seeking to correct mistake apparent from records in the appellate order dated 16.10.2023 passed by ld. CIT(A) instead of filing appeal with ITAT. The assessee has shown reasonable

Shree Krishna Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exm Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, an appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 2455/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. PawarFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (All.CIT) SR DR

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

case of the appellant and in law Ld. Assessing Officer and NFAC has erred in negating the fact that there is mistake apparent on record. 3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. Assessing Officer and NFAC has erred ... been filed against rectification order u/s |54, if date of order is to be reckoned with, then there needs to be some mistake apparent from record. Since in this case there is no mistake apparent from record, therefore, the details filed by the appellant inForm 35 during the time

Ultimate International Private Limited, Delhi vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangaluru, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2780/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

none of the conditions as indicated under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act have been fulfilled as there is no mistake apparent from record nor the Tax Audit indicated any disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances

M/S. Kluber Lubrication India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 765/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh, Shri Devashish Jain & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234CSection 244A

assessee vide letter dated 25/02/2021 challenging the rate of tax adopted by the Revenue. According to the assessee, it was a mistake apparent from record and, therefore, the same needs to be rectified. However, the rectification order u/s 154 was passed dated 22/12/2021 confirming the intimation processed

Sandhya Ramdev Kunjur, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Holding That Appellant Needs To File A Separate Appeal Against The Order Dated 22-12-2019 Passed U/S. 144 Rws 147 When Said Order Is Issued In Electronic Mode On The Inactive Pan: Αλεpk5449B & 2 Sandhya Ramdev Kunjar The Present System Does Not Permit The Appellant To Access The Account Bearing Invalid Pan To File The Appeal Electronically Against Such Order. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Order U/S. 154 Of The Learned A O Which Did Not Give Any Reason For Holding That The Relief Sought For By The Appellant Was "Beyond The Scope Of The Act". 3. The Learned Cit-A Has Ignored The Jurisdictional High Court Judgements In Blue Star Engineering Co (Bombay) (P) Ltd Vs Cit Bombay City [1967] 73 Itr 263 (Bom) & Other Decisions In Holding That The Relief Sought By The Appellant In Her Petition U/S. 154 Could Not Be Granted. Accordingly, It Is Prayed That This Honourable Court Allow The Appeal & Direct The Respondent To Cancel The Assessment Order Passed On 22-12-2019 Under Section 144 On The Inactive Pan.”

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154

r.w.s 147 which has not been done by the Assessee. Section 154 of the Act is limited to the rectification of mistakes apparent from record and the grounds taken by the assessee are beyond the purview of section 154 of the Act. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee ... earlier assessment order passed u/s.144 / 147 which otherwise is admittedly an illegal order. Section 154 of the Act provides for rectification of a mistake apparent from record. “Any mistake apparent from the record” covers all mistakes discoverable from a perusal of the whole evidence in the case, or from

Interarch Building Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8280/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinterarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-30, Sector-57, Noida, Circle-11(1), Uttar Pradesh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaci0106J

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 80I

That the learned AO cannot allege withholding of fact -when he has issued a notice to rectify the order u/s 154 as a mistake apparent from record. 4 The assessment order dated 31-3-14 passed u/s 147 read with 144 is bad in law as the learned

Nisha Bhattacharyya, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

have information/documents from which the nature of direct expenses could be ascertained or that the appellant’s case was not a case of mistake apparent from record with the CPC/Assessing Officer at the time of processing of the 2 Nisha Bhattacharyya return and his said findings are contrary

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2052/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Income Tax Officer Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 570, Aayakar Mazannine Floor, Bhawan, Mamasaheb Varerkar Bridge, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Grant Road, S.O., Mumbai-400 007 Pan/Gir No. Aaach 0986 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul J. Shah Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J M: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) & Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act') For The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under: 1. "Whether In Facts & Circumstances Of The Ease & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Order Passed By Ao U/S 154 Rs 250 Dated 31.03.2021 As "Bad In Law Without Appreciating The Fact That Earlier Order Was Inadvertently Passed Only "U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act & The Second Order Was Passed U/S 250 Rs 154 Of The It Act" To Correct These Bonafide Mistake Occurred & Hence The Same Is Covered By The Provisions Of Section 292 B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 292

order of Ld CIT (A) and after giving effect to the order, AO cannot rectify such order u/s 154 as there was no mistake apparent from record. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) and the same is confirmed. 7. In the result

Tukaram Mahadev Suryavanshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 4(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 785/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.785/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Tukaram Mahadev Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), Pune. Suryavanshi, 210 Ruby Industrial Premises Soc. Ltd., Chincholi Bandar, Mindspace, Malad West, Mumbai- 400064. Pan : Afops1105F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anil Topiwala Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Passed By Ld Addl./Jacit(A), Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Addl/Jcit(A) Kanpur-Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Learned Assistant Director Of Income-Tax Cpc- Bangalore Order Disallowing The Sum Of Rs. 55,10,270/- U/S 36 (1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic As Per Tax Audit Report Deposited

For Appellant: Shri Anil TopiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

date specified under PF & ESIC Laws but before the due date of filing Income Tax Return under Section 143(1) as mistake apparent from record. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter amend or delete any grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 163/NAG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 154

Balram, ITO v/s Volkart Brothers, [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) held that for initiating proceedings under section 154 of the Act, the mistake apparent from record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by long drawn process of reasoning on points on which

Roselabs Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1615/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sahil ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 4Section 5

Further, the appellant submits that a rectification letter dated 23 August 2021 was filed before the learned CIT(A) to rectify the aforesaid mistake apparent from records and restore the said appeal. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the rectification application filed by the appellant ... under VSV. g. In view of the above, disposal of appeal no. CIT (A), Mumbai- 49/10450/2016-17 for assessment year 2013-14 is a mistake apparent from record. The appellant submits that order passed u/s 250 dated 31 May 2021 in respect of appeal no. CIT (A), Mumbai-49/10450/2016-17

M/S Seth Jamunadas Mundhra Seva Sansthan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3) -Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 733/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.733/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Seth Jamunadas Mundhra Seva Sansthan........................……….……Appellant 7Th Floor, 55, Ezra Street, Near Tea Board, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aabts5460R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 08, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2024 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee Is In Appeal Before This Tribunal Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal, Which Are As Under:

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed against order u/s I54 on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from record which could have been rectified w/s 154 when there was no debatable issue that the assessee trust was registered u/s 12A, the old registration

ITO-6(1), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 261/LKW/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Lucknow . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Namita Pandey [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250

addition of Rs. 70.95,000/- made by the A.O. without appreciating the fact that mistake pointed out by the RAP is a mistake apparent from record as the provision for loss in investments was not allowable and the same was rightly disallowed us 154 of the Income ... disallowance of ‘provision’ is not a debatable issue and not disallowing such provision for loss in investment while assessing the income is a mistake apparent on record hence is rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. The present challenge thus seeks to answer twin questions viz; (1) as to whether disallowance