← All Phrases

“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
87
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
57
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
50
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

Bipin Babu Agrawal, Mathura vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

ITA 377/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154

before Ld. CIT(Appeals) for rectification of the first appellate order dated 28.06.2022 on the ground that there were mistakes ‘apparent on record’ within the meaning of section 154 of the Act, while passing the first appellate order dated 28.06.2022 in sustaining the addition towards notional income from house property ... Saurasthtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra), though, has been delivered in reference to section 254(2) of the Act for rectification of the mistake apparent from record by the Tribunal. The CIT(Appeals) is also a quasi judicial authority under the Act and by applying the principle of harmonious construction

Gopal Snacks Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 499/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 बनाम Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Commissioner Of Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Income Tax Vs. Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 Circle-1(1), Rajkot Pan : Aadcg6113A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.DR &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250Section 80J

ought to have deleted the additions/disallowances made in intimation u/s.143(1) and Rectification order u/s.154, since such adjustments does not comprise of the mistake apparent on record. (vi)The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the total income as processed by the CPC, on ignoring the fact that the notice ... processed under section 143(1) by CPC(Central Processing Unit) u/s.143(1) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2021), hence, it is a mistake apparent from record, which needs correction. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated

Gopal Snacks Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

ITA 498/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos. 498 & 499/Rjt/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2020-21 Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Rajkot Plot No.2322-2324, Gidc Metoda, Lodhika, Rajkot, Gujarat-360021 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pan : Aadcg6113A (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Shri K. K. Maloo, Ars. राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee, Pertaining To

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala and ShriFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT.DR &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250Section 80J

ought to have deleted the additions/disallowances made in intimation u/s.143(1) and Rectification order u/s.154, since such adjustments does not comprise of the mistake apparent on record. (vi)The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the total income as processed by the CPC, on ignoring the fact that the notice ... processed under section 143(1) by CPC(Central Processing Unit) u/s.143(1) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2021), hence, it is a mistake apparent from record, which needs correction. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated

Harbhajan Singh Lalwani, Durg vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai

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

ITA 727/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.727/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Harbhajan Singh Lalwani Raipur Naka, Sindhi Colony, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) Pan: Ackpl6958N

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 44A

u/s.250 tantamounts to review of the appeal proceedings and a debatable issue is involved. Therefore, this is not covered in section 154 as mistake apparent from record. Therefore, the application of the assesse is dismissed as non-maintainable.” 4. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

computation of income.” The issue of mistake in computing the interest under section 234A can at best be termed as a mistake apparent from record, which may be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Provisions of section 263 give jurisdictional power whereas provisions of section 154 gives power ... assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 to invoke revisionary proceedings. The matter was open before Ld. AO to take appropriate measures for rectification of mistake apparent from records. This issue in the present case is purely on facts which .are verifiable from the records of the assessee, examination and verification

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

computation of income.” The issue of mistake in computing the interest under section 234A can at best be termed as a mistake apparent from record, which may be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Provisions of section 263 give jurisdictional power whereas provisions of section 154 gives power ... assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 to invoke revisionary proceedings. The matter was open before Ld. AO to take appropriate measures for rectification of mistake apparent from records. This issue in the present case is purely on facts which .are verifiable from the records of the assessee, examination and verification

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2216/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

computation of income.” The issue of mistake in computing the interest under section 234A can at best be termed as a mistake apparent from record, which may be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Provisions of section 263 give jurisdictional power whereas provisions of section 154 gives power ... assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 to invoke revisionary proceedings. The matter was open before Ld. AO to take appropriate measures for rectification of mistake apparent from records. This issue in the present case is purely on facts which .are verifiable from the records of the assessee, examination and verification

Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Kanuru vs. ITO, TDS, Ward(1), Eluru

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

ITA 29/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.29/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2019-20) Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Civil The Income Tax Officer (Tds)-Ward-1 Eluru – 534001 Supplies Corporation Limited Andhra Pradesh 10-152/1, 4Th Floor Sai Towers, Ashok Nagar Bandar Road, Kanuru – 520007 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca7161R]

Section 154Section 201(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

working out the TDS totaling to Rs. 2,36,43,317/-. Subsequently, the Ld. AO observed that a mistake apparent on record in the calculation of non-deduction of TDS for Paddy Procuring Commission and later passed a rectification order U/s. 154 of the Act dated 02/12/2019 by enhancing ... received. In the meantime, the Ld.AO passed one more order under section 154 of the Act for rectifying the mistake apparent from record vide order dated 02.12.2019 which was served on the assessee on 03.12.2019. Ld.AR further submitted that appeal against the order under section 154 of the Act dated

Paila Venkata Padmavathi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 121/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Vs. Paila Venkata Padmavathi The Income Tax Officer Ward– 5(3) 3-47, Thanam Aayakar Bhavan Paravada Mandal Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam Paravada – 531021 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bsipp1954P]

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 282(1)

validity can be challenged at any stage - SC in Kiran singh vs. Chaman Paswan (AIR 1954 SC 340) 4. No "Mistake apparent from Records" as proposed by Ld AO: Ld AO has erred in passing a non-speaking order while rectifying under the guise of sec 154, when there ... mistake apparent from record and without providing reasons for doing so and Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the same as mistake (vide pg 7/8 in the 2nd Paragraph). 4.1 This is against the facts and not according to the law. The rectification for implementing a section 115BBE after passing

Babu Jagjivan Ram National Foundation, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer (E), Ward-1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 223/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Babu Jagjivan Ram Vs. Ito (E) National Foundation, 8 Ward-1(3) Krishna Menon Marg, Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aaaab6869M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Meena Goyal, Ca Ms. Mehak Gupta, Advocate Revenue By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

from A.Y. 2012-13 such exemption cannot be withdraw by passing order u/s.154 of the Act since it is not a mistake apparent from record in allowing exemption u/s. 10 (26B) of the Act while completing the assessment u/s.143(3). 3. On the other hand the learned DR stated that

Discovery Digital Network Private Limited, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Nashik

ITA 2886/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 23Section 234DSection 244A

mistake of not claiming advance tax in the return of income; (ii) a decision on debatable point of law cannot be regarded as mistake apparent from record amenable for rectification under section 154 of the Act, and (iii) tax authorities cannot take advantage of any error or mistake committed ... section '154 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the decision on a debatable point of law cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from record amenable for rectification under section 154; 5.1 In favour of the above grounds the appellant has submitted Section 154 of the Act, inter

Amli Mohammed Taj, Kurnool vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

ITA 397/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.397/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Amli Mohammed Taj, Vs. Dcit, Kurnool. Central Circle-2, Pan: Achpt2412N Guntur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 06/11/2025 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 04/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 19/05/2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 154Section 69A

normal rates and completed the assessment proceedings. 6.6 Thereafter the AO initiated the rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act and rectified the mistake apparent from records by issuing notice u/s 154 of the Act. The AO passed the rectification order dated 19.05.2023 by implementing the provisions of section 115BBE

Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Salem

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2358/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2358/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 4-B, Lakshmipuram, Circle-(1), Gandhi Road, Salem-636 007. Salem. [Pan: Aagcs 3528 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs CIT (143 Taxmann.com 178; dated 12.10.2022). After considering the rival submissions, the Bench held that there was mistake apparent from record in terms of section 254(2) and therefore, the Revenue's applications were to be allowed. The Issue, on merits was decided against

Kulandaivel Thaalamuthu, Namakkal vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1752/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1752/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kulandaivel Thaalamuthu, The Assistant Commissioner 286/2, 1St Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, S.G. Complex, Circle 1, Thuraiyur Road, Namakkal. Namakkal – 637 001. Pan: Abnpt 2841G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 44A

order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act). The AO rejected the rectification petition on 11.06.2020 by holding that there is no mistake apparent from record warranting his interference u/s.154 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the AO rejecting the rectification application, assessee filed appeal before

Prakashbhai Manchharam Mistry, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.132/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Prakash Manchharam Mistry, Vs. The Ito, 57, Viramnagar Society, Dabholi, Ward – 3(2)(1), Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aqtpm1279Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ketan Jagirdar, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 50C

revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He submitted that the appellant filed appeal against the order u/s 154 of the Act. Only mistakes apparent from record could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. The AO has rightly revised the income by reducing Rs.22,10,884/-, which ... double addition u/s ITA No.132/SRT/2025/AY.2012-13 Prakashbhai Manchharam Mistry 50C of the Act. The other grounds are not mistake apparent from record, which could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. The CIT(A), therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused

DCIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mumbai

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

ITA 60/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT[A] NFAC erred in holding the issue to be a mistake apparent from record & setting aside the rejection of rectification application u/s 154 by the AO, by ignoring the fact that the issue involved is debatable in nature ... mistake apparent from record? ii Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd, ignoring the fact that the issue

Shree Agarsain Jan Sewa Sabha, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1010/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Agarsain Jan Sewa Vs. Income Tax Officer Sabha, Cu-164, Vishakha Enclave, Pritampura 110034 Pan No.Aacts3549J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154

filed for the year and as such the whole basis of computing income at Rs. 64,75,527/-constitutes a mistake apparent from record. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in applying the provisions of section 12AA of the Income

District Co-Opertive Sugar Cane Supply Ltd., Bareilly vs. ITO Range-1(1), Bareilly

In the result, in the combined result in ITA

ITA 578/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P

i.r.o completed Assessment by resorting to proceedings u/s 154 of IT Act without considering that it is not a case of ‘mistake apparent from record and thus initiation of rectification proceedings is invalid, illegal ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. That the Authorities below erred on facts ... Rs.52,66,764/- was categorized in the balance-sheet as under the head other receivable from the sugar mills. Therefore, treating it as mistake apparent on record, the Assessing Officer re-computed the income of the assessee and ITA. Nos. 577 & 578/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 21 made impugned addition

District Co-Opertive Sugar Cane Supply Ltd, Bareilly vs. ITO Range-1(2), Bareilly

ITA 577/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P

i.r.o completed Assessment by resorting to proceedings u/s 154 of IT Act without considering that it is not a case of ‘mistake apparent from record and thus initiation of rectification proceedings is invalid, illegal ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. That the Authorities below erred on facts ... Rs.52,66,764/- was categorized in the balance-sheet as under the head other receivable from the sugar mills. Therefore, treating it as mistake apparent on record, the Assessing Officer re-computed the income of the assessee and ITA. Nos. 577 & 578/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 21 made impugned addition

Baani Landbase Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5944/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5944/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Baani Landbase Pvt Ltd., Dcit, Corporate One, Ground Floor, Vs. Circle-4(2), Plot No.5, District Center, Jasola, Central Revenue Building, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aadcb0237E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 292B

face of the order; (iii) That the proceedings u/s 154 of the Act initiated vide Notice dated 26.04.2021 do not constitute mistake apparent from record, for the reason that the same issue was examined during assessment proceedings and constitutes change of opinion; (iv) That the addition made ... pursuant to mistake apparent from record particularly as Ld. AO had issued Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.06.2021 for the reassessment. 3. That without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds of Appeal it is contended on merits, that the Ld. AO while making the impugned addition