← All Phrases

“rectification under section 154”

Rectification & RevisionSection 154Section 154322 judgments

The decision most relied on for rectification under section 154 is ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (305 ITR 227), cited in 470 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on rectification under section 154

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.

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
414 ITR 67 · 2019 · High Court
190
citing judgments

The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held that a co-operative bank or society is not entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act if it provides loans to non-members. This decision was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court.

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.

Laxmndas Bhatia Hingwala Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
330 ITR 243 · 2011 · High Court
49
citing judgments

An order cannot be amended under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if it involves debatable issues of fact or law. The power under this section is restricted to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record.

Judgments citing rectification under section 154

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 145/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

allowed overlooking section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA is applied. This being

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

allowed overlooking section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA is applied. This being

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

allowed overlooking section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA is applied. This being

Ajay Kumar Ghosh, Patna vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40A(3)

impugned order passed under section 154 and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable for two reasons:- (a) The power of rectification under section 154 of the Income Tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent

Vasudha Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2639/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chakravarty, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

filed within the period prescribed under rule 128 and secondly, the issue being a debatable one, cannot be a subject matter of rectification under section 154 of the Act. At the outset, we will address the issue of limitation in filing Form 67. No doubt, as per the extant Rule

Saloni Singhal Khandelwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 67(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 999/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri KVS Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 193(9)Section 199

denial of refund of TDS deducted by the employers as attributable to forfeited salary, the assessee moved application before CPC seeking rectification under Section 154 of the Act. However, status quo was maintained in the rectification proceedings and no relief was granted by the CPC to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

Gaurav Singh, Satna vs. ITO-Ward Satna, Satna

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 90/JAB/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegaurav Singh, Ito, C/0,Rajiv Narayan Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, Parijat Niwas, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Satna-485001. Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Appellant Respondent Pan: Bbdps8879Q

For Appellant: Shri.Sapan Usrethe,Advocate. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 90Section 91

dated 28.05.2020 was passed. He pointed out that the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) did not dismiss the Assessee application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act on the ground that the issue was debatable but rather the decision was given that the relevant rule was 7 Gaurav

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 9(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1001/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 234CSection 250

book profit under section 115J8, not appreciating that the same was not 'mistake apparent from record' for exercise of powers of rectification under section 154 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law; the CIT(A) erred in upholding

Sparsh Association of Development Professionals & Consultants, Rewa vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Rewa

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 105/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri.SapanUsrethe.Adv.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta.Sr.DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

said principle, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent dated 12.3.2021 is quashed and aside. The impugned order of rectification under Section 154 of the Act dated 25.1.2019 is also quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before the respondent ... principle, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent dated 12-3- 2021 is quashed and aside. The impugned order of rectification under section 154 of the Act dated 25-1-2019 is also quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner

Aluminium Pechiney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int. Tax., New Dehi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 9484/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice-Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aluminium Pechiney, Vs. Dcit, C/O- Ca, Praveen Gambhir, Circle-1(1)(1), 87-B, Masjid Moth Ph-2, International Taxation, Dda Flats, G.K. 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaica3338C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154

amount of ₹ 1,08,22,488/-, being receipt towards supply of goods from the income determined. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application for rectification under section 154 of the Act. While considering assessee’s rectification application, learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted further relief by reducing an amount

Aluminium Pechiney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int. Tax., New Dehi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 9483/DEL/2019[ 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice-Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aluminium Pechiney, Vs. Dcit, C/O- Ca, Praveen Gambhir, Circle-1(1)(1), 87-B, Masjid Moth Ph-2, International Taxation, Dda Flats, G.K. 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaica3338C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154

amount of ₹ 1,08,22,488/-, being receipt towards supply of goods from the income determined. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application for rectification under section 154 of the Act. While considering assessee’s rectification application, learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted further relief by reducing an amount

M/S Aluminium Pechiney, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3410/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice-Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aluminium Pechiney, Vs. Dcit, C/O- Ca, Praveen Gambhir, Circle-1(1)(1), 87-B, Masjid Moth Ph-2, International Taxation, Dda Flats, G.K. 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaica3338C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154

amount of ₹ 1,08,22,488/-, being receipt towards supply of goods from the income determined. Thereafter, the assessee moved an application for rectification under section 154 of the Act. While considering assessee’s rectification application, learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted further relief by reducing an amount

Royal Suitings Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 154

claim of deduction of Rs. 21,45,124/- from the book profit for calculation of MAT. Therefore, assessee had filed an application for rectification under section 154 of the Act. The ITO rejected assessee’s application for rectification. We have perused order of the ITAT in the case of assessee

Regal Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1737/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.H. JariwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

opinions. In view of the above, as is evident from the facts available on record, the issue of interest income on which rectification under section 154 of the Act was done Regal Industries ITA no.1737/Mum./2023 by the AO in the present case is open to divergent views

Knowledge Infrastructure System Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 13(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 635/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

order dated 03.07.2023 disposing off the aforesaid RTI application filed under RTI Act, 2005, the designated PIO has clearly stated that rectification under Section 154 dated 24.12.2021 has been processed with no demand and no refund. However, no formal rectification order is available on ITBA portal and thus not provided

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Mahasamund, Mahasamund vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi Shrishrimal, Mahasamund

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 197/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.197/Rpr/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi Shrishrimal, Ward-Mahasamund, 31, M.B. Building, Gandhi Chowk, Chhattisgarh Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Pan No. : Ajgps 0562 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Sh. Amit M. Jain, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Sh. Simran Bhullar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Present Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case Whether The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,12,98,657/- U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Calling For Remand Report From The Ao On The Issue Of Unexplained Increase In Capital U/S 68 Of The Act. 2. Any Other Grounds That May Be Adduced At The Time Of Hearing. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Assessee Is An Individual Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 30Th March, 2019, Showing A Total Income Of Rs.7,03,830/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Assessment Under E- Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Issue Of Share Capital/Other Capital.

For Appellant: Sh. Amit M. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Simran Bhullar, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

addition in the hands of the assessee. Since, the mistake was apparent from records, the assessee has opted to file an application for rectification under section 154 of the Act, which was submitted to the Department on 11th April, 6 2022, a copy of the same has been furnished ... perusal. Learned AR further submitted that the application of the assessee for rectification under section 154 of the Act was never disposed of by the Department, thus, the same is still pending with the Department. As an alternate remedy, the assessee has filed an appeal before

Simplex Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD)-1) Cir 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2554/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

appeal for AY 2009-10 is allowed in favour of the assessee the revenue can disallow the said amount in 2010-11 through rectification under section 154. The relevant observations of the CIT(A) is as under:- “37. In any case the appellant company has given an undertaking through

DCIT (OSD-I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai vs. Simplex Realty Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2311/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

appeal for AY 2009-10 is allowed in favour of the assessee the revenue can disallow the said amount in 2010-11 through rectification under section 154. The relevant observations of the CIT(A) is as under:- “37. In any case the appellant company has given an undertaking through

Bhuramal Rajmal Surana & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 254/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Her; (B) No Proceedings Were Directed To Be Initiated In Original Appeal Order Dt. 28.02.2022 And/Or; (C) It Has Been Passed In Haste Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Manisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 271ASection 41(1)Section 68

view, any change in the order can only be done by invoking the powers of revision and not by passing order of rectification under section 154 of the Act. In this regard we draw strength from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ralson

Shri Swami Vivekanand Trust, Adipur vs. The DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 66/RJT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

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

taxable income. On receipt intimation under section 143(1) of the Act the assessee uploaded in Form 10B and filed application for rectification under section 154 of the Act. The application of the assessee was rejected on the ground report in Form 10B was not furnished before due date ... principle, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent dated 12-3-2021 is quashed and aside. The impugned order of rectification under section 154 of the Act dated 25-1-2019 is also quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner