← All Phrases

“mistake apparent on record”

Rectification & RevisionSection 154Section 154888 judgments

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

Leading authorities on mistake apparent on 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 on record

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 469/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

statute and clarifications issued by CBDT and consequently, non-appreciation of the prevailing position in law is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. b) That the binding judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi ... 200A of the Act are not applicable for a period prior to 01.06.2015 and consequently, non-appreciation of the binding precedents is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that the issue of levy c) of late filing

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 468/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

statute and clarifications issued by CBDT and consequently, non-appreciation of the prevailing position in law is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. b) That the binding judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi ... 200A of the Act are not applicable for a period prior to 01.06.2015 and consequently, non-appreciation of the binding precedents is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that the issue of levy c) of late filing

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 467/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

statute and clarifications issued by CBDT and consequently, non-appreciation of the prevailing position in law is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. b) That the binding judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi ... 200A of the Act are not applicable for a period prior to 01.06.2015 and consequently, non-appreciation of the binding precedents is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that the issue of levy c) of late filing

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 466/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

statute and clarifications issued by CBDT and consequently, non-appreciation of the prevailing position in law is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. b) That the binding judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi ... 200A of the Act are not applicable for a period prior to 01.06.2015 and consequently, non-appreciation of the binding precedents is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that the issue of levy c) of late filing

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

statute and clarifications issued by CBDT and consequently, non-appreciation of the prevailing position in law is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. b) That the binding judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi ... 200A of the Act are not applicable for a period prior to 01.06.2015 and consequently, non-appreciation of the binding precedents is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that the issue of levy c) of late filing

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

statute and clarifications issued by CBDT and consequently, non-appreciation of the prevailing position in law is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. b) That the binding judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi ... 200A of the Act are not applicable for a period prior to 01.06.2015 and consequently, non-appreciation of the binding precedents is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that the issue of levy c) of late filing

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 463/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

statute and clarifications issued by CBDT and consequently, non-appreciation of the prevailing position in law is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. b) That the binding judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi ... 200A of the Act are not applicable for a period prior to 01.06.2015 and consequently, non-appreciation of the binding precedents is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that the issue of levy c) of late filing

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

statute and clarifications issued by CBDT and consequently, non-appreciation of the prevailing position in law is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. b) That the binding judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi ... 200A of the Act are not applicable for a period prior to 01.06.2015 and consequently, non-appreciation of the binding precedents is a mistake apparent on record in terms of section 154 of the Act. Notwithstanding the above, it is submitted that the issue of levy c) of late filing

M/S. Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 123/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kmv Projects Ltd., The Assistant 8-3-948/949, Level 4, Commissioner Of Solitair Plaza, Income Tax, Beside Image Hospital, Central Circle – Ameerpet, 2(4), Hyderabad – 500 073. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aadck0785C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vilas V Shinde, Cit Date Of Hearing : 30-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/11/2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/10/2020, Declaring An Income Of Rs.120,82,53,580/-. An Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed By The Ld.Ao On 24.12.2020 Determining The Total Income At Rs.130,55,46,012/- & Raising A Demand Of Rs.6,93,18,855/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 80I

Ld.AO in the order dated 05/01/2021 passed u/s. 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act sought to rectify a mistake apparent on record, that crept in while calculating interest u/s. 234B & C of the Act. Against this order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), wherein it also raised

Shri Shridevi Charitable Trust, Tumkur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 227/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)(ITAT)
Section 11Section 154

facts in upholding the validity of order u/s. 154 of the Act on the ground that there is a mistake apparent from record even though there is no mistake apparent from the record. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the appellant ... order u/s. 154 of the Act even though the issue regarding the depreciation is a settled issue and disallowance of depreciation is a mistake apparent from record. 4.2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant has a right to make

Dineshl. Agarwal (HUF), Mumbai vs. \U005Cu00Ccto WD 24(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 2315/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledinesh L. Agarwal Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 24(1) 210, Bajsons Industrial Piramal Chambers, Estate, Chakala Road, Lower Parel, Andheri (E) Mumbai Mumbai-400069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aachd0534N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Neha Pranjpe.Ar Respondent By : Mr. S.G.Mehta.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 254 & 250 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Pranjpe.ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.G.Mehta.DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44Section 68

seeking rectification of the mistake on account of wrong figures in the CIT(A) order. The appellate authority (CIT(A)) has considered the mistake apparent on record and passed the rectification order U/sec154 of the Act dated 24-05-2017 sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs.12

M/S. Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 69/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Prestige Estates Projects The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Prestige Falcon Tower, Income Tax, No. 19, Brunton Road, Central Circle – 1 Bangalore – North, (1), Bangalore – 560 025. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcp8096K Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 23.11.2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru (`Ao") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act-) In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

deducing that the action of the AO vide order dated 19.03.2020 denying the relief given to the Appellant vide order dated 28.04.2016 constituted mistake apparent from record. 2.5. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the order passed under section 154 dated 19.03.2020 should be quashed ... Grounds relatin,, to mistake apparent from record 3.1. The learned AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 2 crores in the order passed under section 154 dated 19.3.2020 as a mistake apparent from record. There being no mistake apparent from record, the impugned addition of Rs. 2 crores

Bhupati Tennis Academy Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 722/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore24 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhupati Tennis Academy Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Vs. 183/4, Kodigehalli Vidyaranyapura Ward – 1(1)(3), Post, Thindlu Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 097. Pan : Aabcb 3463 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh, (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh, (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194JSection 40Section 40a

taken by the AO from the objections raised by “internal audit party” and not from assessment record. He submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record as alleged by the AO, which would warrant initiation of rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act. He submitted that the Internal ... from the expenditure accounted for by the assessee. 6. Having heard the rival submissions, I am of the view that there is no mistake apparent on record as alleged by the AO, which would warrant initiation of rectification proceedings. From the reasons given for initiation of rectification proceedings, which

Keshav Gore Smarak Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Banglore

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 5037/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Milin DattaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

contended that in intimation on processing the revised return of income, the sale consideration/cost has been considered as capital gain, which is a mistake apparent from record and ought to be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. The appellant contends that in the intimation ... that the instant appeal has been filed against order passed u/s 154 of the Act and what could therefore be rectified is the mistake apparent from record and not any issue which is debatable in nature. As per the provisions of Sec.11(1A) of the Act, net sale consideration

DCIT vs. M/S Fiza Developers & Infrastructer Pvt. Ltd

In the result, all the miscellaneous petitions are allowed

ITA 985/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 263Section 54FSection 57

jurisdictional High Court in the case of Master Subraya M Pai reported in 150 ITR 251 [Kar] is also a mistake apparent on record and the same is rectifiable u/s 254(2) of the Act. 10. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to amend the order

Aneeka Universal Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-9, Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7115/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 263Section 57

along with certain judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High court. The said findings of the Tribunal constitute a mistake apparent on record, which can be rectified u/s 254(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Hence, we recalled the order of the Tribunal, dated 29/11/2019 in ITA No.7115/Mum/2018

ITO 5(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Malabar Hills Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3592/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 5(2)(3) V. M/S. Malabar Hill Club Limited Room No. 566, 5Th Floor B.G. Kher Marg, Malabar Hill Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacw3868M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niraj D. Sheth & Shri Vishal Asrani Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D. Sheth and Shri Vishal AsraniFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)

Appellant had preferred an rectification application u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act 1961 inter-al/a pointing out the aforesaid mistake apparent on record - a photocopy of the said rectification application is forwarded herewith - refer "Appendix - F (page No. 95 to 102 of the compilation). 4. The said rectification ... u/s.154 of the Income-tax Act 1961 inter-alia pointing out therein that taxing the entrance fees received from ordinary members is an mistake apparent on record — a photocopy of the said rectification application is already forwarded herewith as "Appendix - F" (page No. 95 to 102 of the compilation

B. Ravikuamr Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 603/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153ASection 154Section 156Section 234ASection 250

Appeals) without prejudice failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer at Hyderabad ought to have issued notice if any for correcting the mistake apparent on record on the facts and circumstances of the case and the notice issued by the present learned Assessing Officer under section

Hp India Sales Private Limited (Formerly Known As Hewlett - Packard India Sales Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 779/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

final assessment order the AO retained the disallowance made u/s 40a(ia) and the observations made towards deferred revenue expenditure. There was mistake apparent on record in the order passed by the TPO u/s 92C of the Act and the assessee preferred a rectification application

Hemant M. Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT 33 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6483/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehemant M Mehta Huf Vs. Acit – 33(2), A-307/308, Ekta Room No. 302, 3Rd Terrace, Dahanuru Floor, C-11, Wadi, Kandivili (W), Pratyakshakr Bhavan, Maharashtra – 400 067 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aachh8909M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashok Bansal & Shri Ajay Daga.Ar Respondent By : Ms. Neena Jeph. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal &For Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292

respect of bogus purchases and gross profit ratio. Subsequently, the assessee has filed the Miscellaneous application in MA No.246/Mum/2021 that there is a mistake apparent on record that the Hon’ble Tribunal has not adjudicated the ground of appeal on validity of assessment but decided on the merits