Section 154 is in itself
a complete code governing the filing of rectification petitions with the intent
to cure the mistake/error/omission apparent from record. ‘Any mistake apparent
from record’ must be the one which is apparent from the face of record and
cannot be the one which can be drawn by perceptive capabilities or engineered
reasoning.
Section 154 of the
Income-tax Act basically deals with the correction of any error that may or may
not have occurred in the income-tax records of any assessee. Section 154 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’), pertains to
rectification of mistakes in the income-tax records or an order passed by the
Assessing Officer. Any order can be rectified to correct any mistake apparent
from record.
Query 1 : What errors can be corrected by filing a rectification ?
The Income
Tax Department allows a rectification request when there is a mistake in Income
Tax Return. The following errors can be rectified by filing a rectification
request -
Answer : (i) Mistakes
apparent from the record : The key
requirement is that the error must be apparent from the face of the record,
meaning it should be something that can be recognized at a glance without
extensive investigation. This ensures that the rectification process remains
straightforward and efficient, correcting only errors that are indisputable.
(ii) Clear and obvious mistake of fact
or law : Orders
under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act can be rectified when there is a clear
and obvious mistake of fact or law that is readily apparent from the record.
The rectification process allows for corrections in cases where the error is so
evident that it can be identified without the need for extended analysis or
debate.
(iii) Clerical errors : Mistakes that qualify for rectification typically include clerical
errors, arithmetical mistakes, or oversights in applying established legal
principles. For example, if there has been a simple miscalculation,
typographical error, or failure to apply a clearly defined rule of law.
(iv) Error due to overlooking of compulsory provisions of law.
(v) Obvious omission: There is an obvious omission or clerical oversight that affects the
accuracy of the order.
Query 2 : What is meant by rectifiable mistakes ?
Answer : The rectification mechanism serves as a
corrective tool to address undeniable errors that are easily identifiable and
do not require further investigation or extensive interpretation.
(i) Glaring mistake:
For an error to be rectifiable under
this section, it must be a glaring mistake, i.e., the mistake is so clear that
it does not require a detailed inquiry or debate to recognize it.
(ii) Mistakes that do
not require re-examining of issues:
Rectification is meant to correct
obvious and uncontested mistakes, i.e., mistakes that do not require
re-examining of issues or where there are no differences in opinion.
(iii) Mistakes that do
not require prolonged argument:
Orders can be rectified when they do
not require prolonged argument or re-evaluation of the matter.
All mistakes whether of
fact or law can be rectified. A glaring and obvious mistake of law can be
rectified as much as a mistake of fact apparent from the record
Section 214, read with
section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 18A(5), read
with section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - ITO while passing
assessment order, gave respondent/assessee-company credit, representing
interest at 2 per cent on tax paid in advance under section 18A of 1922 Act. On
24.05.1953, Amendment Act came into force which was retrospectively applicable
from 01.05.1952. Effect of amendment was that assessee was entitled to get
interest at 2 per cent not on whole of advance amount of tax paid by him as
before but only on difference between payment made and amount at which assessee
was assessed to tax. After Amendment Act was passed, ITO exercised his power
under section 35 and purported to rectify mistake apparent from record in
regard to excess credit allowed by him to assessee. Since as a result of
Amendment Act, subsequently inserted proviso formed part of section 18A(5) of
Principal Act from 01.04.1952, conclusion was inescapable that order passed by
ITO in original assessment became inconsistent with said proviso and must be
deemed to suffer from mistake apparent from record. Therefore, ITO was
justified in exercising his power under section 35 and rectifying said mistake.
[In favour of revenue] (Related Assessment year : 1952-53) – [M.K. Venkatachalam,
ITO v. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 143 (SC)]
Query 3 : What is the “mistake” envisaged in Section
154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Answer
: In taxation
law, the word “mistake” holds unique significance. Defining a “mistake”
precisely is challenging, as it often involves subjective judgment. What one
person considers a mistake may not appear so to another. However, a
well-informed and judicious mind, upon reviewing the records, can detect such
errors. Thus, the word "mistake" encompasses errors that can be
identified through careful examination of the relevant records.
As far as Section 154 of the Income
Tax Act is concerned, a mistake refers to an inadvertent error made in the
application of existing facts and law, where something unintended has occurred.
These mistakes are typically simple, obvious errors like clerical or
arithmetical mistakes or the misapplication of clear legal provisions, which
can be corrected without debate or interpretation.
Mistakes arising from conscious
decisions, deliberate interpretations, or logical reasoning fall outside the scope
of Section 154.
Under provision of section 154,
income-tax officials cannot in guise of rectification, review or recall earlier
order on strength of subsequent declaration of law by Supreme Court. Wrong
application of law is not a mistake apparent from records and, therefore, it
cannot be a mistake within meaning of section 154. (Related Assessment years :
1989-90 to 1994-95) – [Smriti Properties (P) Ltd. v. Settlement
Commission (2005) 278 ITR 275 : 199 CTR 261 : 149 Taxman 386/ (Cal.)]
Mistake should be
apparent only from records
It was held that, “Any
apparent error can be rectified within the period prescribed in section 37. An
apparent error must be from the records of the case and not error discovered
from other sources. Any error discovered as a result of investigation of other
records or other sources will not constitute an apparent error on the face of
the record which alone confers jurisdiction on the officer concerned to rectify
any order” – [EM. Viswanathan Chettiar v. Agrl. ITO (1983) 142 ITR 244
(Karn.)]
Mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake – It should not require a long drawn process of reasoning where there may be conceivably two opinions – ITO was incompetent to pass orders under section 154 of the Act to rectify the assessment. [Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, Section 17(1)]
The Hon’ble Supreme
Court analysed the provisions of section 17(1) of the 1922 Act, wherein, a
person being a non-resident would be taxable at the maximum rate plus super
tax. However, section 17(1) can apply only to a ‘person’ as defined in section
2(9) of the 1922 Act. The expression ‘person’ was defined to include only an
HUF and a local authority. A firm was not considered a person as defined and
hence the provisions of section 17(1) of the 1922 Act could not apply to the
assessee-firm. However, the provisions of section 2(31) of the Act defined a
person to include a firm. Whether the definition contained in section 2(31) of
the Act is an amendment of the law or merely declaratory of the law that was in
force earlier was kept open by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that
since the application of the provisions of section 17(1) of the 1922 Act to the
assessee was not free from doubt and there could be two opinions, the ITO was
not justified in his view that there could be no two opinions. The Supreme
Court further held that the ITO cannot go into the scope of the provisions of
the Act in proceedings under section 154 of the Act as a mistake apparent on
the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which
requires a long drawn process of reasoning where there may be conceivably two
opinions. Hence, a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake
apparent from the record. (Related Assessment years : 1958-59, 1960-61 to
1962-63) – [T. S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)]
Query 4 : What is the “meaning of Record” envisaged in Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
Answer : The “record” does not refer solely to the
assessment order but includes all proceedings on which the assessment order is
based. The word “record” refers to the documents and information that the
income tax authorities are obligated to examine when addressing mistakes in
orders, as specified under Section 154(1). This section does not impose, either
explicitly or by implication, any restriction on the scope of the authority's
review to the specific order being rectified. Instead, the authorities are
empowered to examine the entire record, which may include all related documents
and materials relevant to the rectification of the mistake. This broadens the
scope of rectification, permitting tax authorities to correct mistakes not just
within the confines of the original order, but by considering all relevant
materials within the record. This ensures that justice is done and
administrative errors are effectively corrected.
If the
tax authorities find that the basis on which the rectification application is
made pertains to earlier years, due to an initial error in calculating the
written-down value, it cannot be said that this is not a mistake apparent from
the record. Such a mistake should still be considered as rectifying an error
from the record, not something outside of it.
‘Record’
for purpose of section 154(1) is record available to authorities at time of
initiation of proceedings for rectification and not merely record of original
proceeding sought to be rectified
Section
154 opens with the words ‘with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from
the record. . . .’ The term ‘record’ is not defined in the section or in the
definition section of the Act. For determining the true scope of this provision
and the meaning to be properly assigned to the term ‘record’ it is necessary to
keep in view the object of the provision and the nature of the power conferred
on the authorities under that provision. These are the criteria which the
Supreme Court adopted while considering the scope and effect of section 263 and
the meaning to be assigned to the word ‘record’ used in that provision.
The
object with which power is conferred by section 154 is as stated in the
marginal heading ‘rectification of mistake’. The principal condition for
exercising the power under section 154 is the existence of a mistake in the
record. The mistake is not to be a mistake which requires in-depth probing to
discover but is a mistake which is ‘apparent’ from the record. The power
conferred by this provision is only to enable the authorities to rectify the
‘apparent’ mistakes in the record. The record referred to is the record which
the authorities are required to examine for the purpose of rectifying mistakes
in the orders mentioned in sub-clauses (a),(b) and (c) of section 154(1). The
section does not either expressly or implicitly require that the authorities
exercising power under this provision should limit their attention only to the
order sought to be rectified.
For
assessment year 1973-74, assessment was completed without setting off
unabsorbed depreciation against capital gains and by allowing same to be
carried forward. In assessment year 1974-75, unabsorbed depreciation was
deducted from total income of assesse. Thereafter assessment order for
assessment year 1973-74 was rectified and unabsorbed depreciation was set off
against capital gains of that year. Consequent to this rectification order
Assessing Officer rejected assessment order for 1974-75 also. The mistake in
not allowing unabsorbed depreciation as a deduction from capital gains in
1973-74 was clearly a mistake apparent from record as under section 71(2) that
amount was required to be set off against capital gain and that had not been
done in original order. It was permissible for Assessing Officer to rectify
mistakes apparent in assessment order for year 1974-75 after assessment order
for year 1973-74 was rectified and as a consequence of which there was no
unabsorbed depreciation available for being adjusted in assessment year
1974-75. (Related Assessment years : 1973-74 and 1974-75) – [CIT v. M. R. M.
Plantations (P) Ltd. (1999) 240 ITR 660 : 102 Taxman 1 (Mad.)]
Query 5 : Whether any form prescribed for making application under section 154
Answer
: There is no form prescribed under Income-tax Rules for
rectification application under section 154 of Income-tax, Act-1961.
Query 6 : Can Assessing Officer rectify the order, against which an appeal is pending?
Answer : Section 154(1A) of the Income Tax Act imposes
a clear restriction on the power to rectify orders in situations where the
matter in question has already been “considered and decided” through the
process of an appeal or revision.
The crucial aspect is the use of the
phrase “considered and decided.” This indicates that the
provision applies only to cases where the appellate or revisional authority
has already concluded the matter and rendered a decision on
the issue. In other words, once a matter has been fully adjudicated, it becomes
final and is no longer open to rectification under Section 154.
Importantly, the phrase “considered
and decided” cannot be interpreted to include cases that are
still pending in appeal or revision. Matters that are yet to
be finalized, or where the appellate authority has not yet arrived at a
decision, do not fall within the ambit of this restriction. Therefore, Section
154(1A) applies exclusively to matters where the appellate or revisional
decision has been conclusively made, reinforcing the finality of such decisions
and preventing further rectification of the same issues.
Section 154(1A) places an embargo on
power of rectification of assessment order in cases where matter had been
considered and decided in appeal or revision; however, there is no embargo on
power of amendment if an appeal or revision is merely pending since such
pending appeal/revision does not assume character of a sub-judice matter
Assessee
filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the
Assessing Officer did not give credit of advance tax of Rs. 16.80 crores. The
assessee also made an application under section 154 to the Assistant
Commissioner for rectification. The assessee stated that by a mistake apparent
on record, the credit of payment of advance tax of Rs.16.80 crores had not been
given and the assessee was entitled to a refund. The Assistant Commissioner
rejected the rectification application stating that assessee did not inform
that an appeal was filed on the same issue for which rectification was sought.
Since the assessee was agitating on similar ground before the appellate
authority, it was not proper on the part of the Assistant Commissioner,
following the doctrine of judicial discipline, to adjudicate on the same issue
pending before the appellate authority; therefore, rectification application
assumed character of a matter being sub-judice. On writ petition before the
High Court :
Held :
Section 154(1) empowers the Authority to rectify and carry out amendments. The
specified Authorities can amend any order passed by it under the provisions of
the Act, any intimation or deemed intimation specified in section 143(1), any
intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A and any intimation under
sub-section (1) of section 206CB. Section 154(2) empowers the Authority to make
an amendment on its own motion and to make such amendment for rectifying any
such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee, or the other
Authorities.
Section
154(1A) provides that where any matter has been considered and decided in any
proceeding by way of appeal or revision, contained in any law for the time
being in force, such order shall not be amended. Section 154(1A), thus, places
an embargo on the power of rectification in the cases where the matter has been
considered and decided in appeal or revision. It is of importance that the
legislature has used the phrase ‘considered and decided’ in the past tense. The
phrase ‘considered and decided’ cannot be read as ‘pending consideration in
appeal or revision’. To do so would be adding and changing the plain language
of the statute. By modifying and adding the words in this manner, which is not
permissible, the Assistant Commissioner has divested himself of the power of
amendment. In view of the plain language of section 154, there is no embargo on
the power of amendment if an appeal or revision is merely pending. The
rejection of the rectification application on this ground was unwarranted. The
appeal is still pending. The Assistant Commissioner has failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in him and, thus, the impugned order will have to be set
aside and the application will have to be decided.
The Writ
Petition succeeds. The impugned order is to be quashed and set aside. The
rectification application filed by the petitioner under section 154 stands
restored to the file of Assistant Commissioner to be disposed of on its own
merits. [In favour of assessee, matter remanded] (Related Assessment year :
2015-16) – [Piramal Investment
Opportunities Fund v. ACIT (2019) 267 Taxman 297 : 111 taxmann.com 5 (Bom.)]
Query 7 : Can order
passed u/s 154 be revised u/s 263?
Answer : Yes,
When an order of assessment has been rectified under Section 154, it may still
become the subject of a revision proceeding under Section 263. The rectification
does not insulate the order from further review by a higher authority.
The Commissioner has the discretion to conduct inquiries as deemed necessary to
ascertain whether the rectified order aligns with the law and the interests of
the Revenue. This may involve examining the basis of the original assessment as
well as any rectifications made.
Assessing Officer can not rectify
the order on the issue which has been decided by appellate/ revisional
authority
Where
appeal is filed relating to a matter and same was considered or decided or to
be treated to have been considered or decided by appellate authority, it is no
longer open for assessing authority to reopen or reagitate or rectify said
issue of matter. Penalty levied on assessee-firm under section 271(1)(c) was
confirmed in appeal. Subsequently ITO sought to rectify order of assessment and
penalty under section 154, stating that there was an error apparent as by
mistake he did not notice that section 271(2) was applicable and penalty
imposed under section 271(1)(c) would have been higher than the amount imposed.
It was not open to the ITO to pass an order of rectification. - [P. Das & Co. v. DCIT (1996) 217 ITR 28
: 87 Taxman 28 (Gauhati)]
Query 8 : Can order be rectified on the basis of subsequent declaration of law by the Supreme Court ?
Answer : (i) Interpretation of Law : No
Under the provisions of Section 154
of the Income Tax Act, income-tax authorities cannot, under the pretext of rectification,
review or recall an earlier order based on a subsequent declaration of law by
the Supreme Court.
The scope of Section 154 is narrowly
confined to correcting errors that are apparent from the record - meaning the
mistake must have existed at the time the original order was passed and must
have been evident from the materials on record. It refers to a clear and
undeniable error that could have been easily identified without extensive
reasoning or re-examination.
A mistake that involves a subsequent
change in the interpretation of the law cannot be classified as a mistake
apparent from the record. Rectification under Section 154 is not a tool for
revisiting an earlier order based on a later judicial pronouncement. The legal
principles governing the case at the time of the original order remain
relevant, and tax authorities cannot retroactively apply new interpretations to
alter an already finalized order through rectification.
(ii)
Explaining Correct position of Law:
Yes
If the Supreme Court decision is
aimed at clarifying/explaining the legal position of Law, the order made
earlier can be rectified under section 154 (CBDT Circular No. 68 dated 17.11.1997).
CBDT Circular : No. 68 [F. No. 245/17/71-A & PAC], dated 17.11.1971.
Subject
: Mistakes apparent from records - Whether can be treated as such on the basis
of subsequent decision of Supreme Court
1. The Board are advised that a
mistake arising as a result of a subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme
Court would constitute ‘a mistake apparent from the records’ and rectificatory
action under section 35/154 of the 1922 Act/the 1961 Act would be in order. It
has, therefore, been decided that where an assessee moves an application under
section 154 pointing out that in the light of a later decision of the Supreme
Court pronouncing the correct legal position, a mistake has occurred in any of
the completed assessments in his case, the application shall be acted upon,
provided the same has been filed within time and is otherwise in order. Where any
such applications have already been rejected and the assessee files fresh
applications within the statutory time limit, the same may also be treated on
par with the applications which may either be pending or received after the
issue of this circular.
2. The Board desire that any
appeals or references pending on the point at issue may please be withdrawn.
Query 9 : Which types of orders are not eligible for rectification?
Answer : (i) The
issue that was not initially examined:
An issue
that was not initially examined, whether on factual or legal grounds, cannot be
considered a “mistake apparent on the record” under Section 154. Such omissions
or oversights may require an appeal, but they do not meet the threshold for
correction under the narrow scope of Section 154.
(ii) Interpretation of a legal provision:
When the
alleged mistake involves the interpretation of a legal provision - such as
determining the correct application of a particular section of the Act, or
resolving ambiguities in the language of the law - it is no longer a simple,
obvious mistake. In such cases, the issue becomes debatable or open to
different legal interpretations. Since interpretation or construction of law
inherently involves subjective judgment and potentially varying perspectives,
it cannot be considered a mistake that is “apparent” from the face of the
record.
(iii) Issue that requires a lengthy process of
reasoning: An error
that requires a lengthy process of reasoning or involves points where two
differing opinions are possible cannot be considered an “error apparent on the
face of the record.” The concept of an error apparent on the face of the record
is intended to address mistakes that are straightforward, indisputable, and
clearly evident from the existing material. These errors are so obvious that
they can be identified without the need for extensive debate or in-depth legal
analysis.
(iv) Debatable issue:
A mistake
that involves a deeper examination of complex legal or factual points and might
lead to multiple, potentially valid interpretations or opinions is not
considered “apparent” but rather debatable. Such issues fall beyond the scope
of Section 154.
(v) Issue with two or more plausible views:
Mistakes
that involve questions where two or more plausible views could be taken fall
beyond the limited scope of correcting simple, evident mistakes.
(vi) Omission to claim a deduction/exemption:
In cases
where the assessee omits to claim a deduction in its return of income, this
cannot be considered a mistake apparent from the record. It reflects a
deliberate action or failure by the assessee, and it would require the
Assessing Officer to revisit and reassess the merits of the claim.
Query 10 : Can Assessing Officer has the power to rectify the order u/s 154 and to restore the original order?
Answer : (i) When the power is exercised without
application of mind : No
An order passed under Section 154,
which allows for the rectification of mistakes apparent from the record,
requires adherence to procedural fairness and application of mind, including
giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case. By
bypassing this essential procedural safeguard, the Assessing Officer’s decision
becomes legally unsustainable. Such a flawed exercise of power makes the order
vulnerable on the grounds of violating due process.
Section 90 of the Finance (No. 2)
Act, 1998, read with section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Kar Vivad
Smadhan Scheme - Assessee-company filed its return of income. Assessing Officer
made prima facie adjustments under section 143(1)(a) and enhanced tax
liabilities. Against order assessee filed application for rectification as well
as appeal before Commissioner. Since tax was not paid in compliance with
section 249, appeal was not disposed of. However, Assessing Officer partially
accepting assessee’s application reduced liability. On 30.12.1998 assessee
filed an application for revision under section 264 which was still pending.
Assessee declared income under KVSS on 31.12.1998. Before designated authority,
i.e., Commissioner could pass an order to Assessing Officer in exercise of his
power under section 154 deleted addition which was made by him. Designated
Authority held that since income as returned by assessee was accepted, no
dispute existed on date of declaration and said issue would not come under
KVSS. Assessing Officer having already exercised power under section 154,
reducing liabilities of assessee, it concluded matter as to prima facie
adjustments and he could not subsequently apply his mind again to delete
adjustments to make assessee’s declaration under KVSS infructuous on ground
that no dispute was pending. Therefore, subsequent exercise of jurisdiction
under section 154 by Assessing Officer on his own was only with a view to
prevent assessee from receiving benefits of KVSS and such order suffered from
malice which was required to be quashed. Basic concept of tax arrears as well
as conditions which makes a person eligible to make a declaration of tax
arrears have direct relevance to date of declaration and arrears are not
confined to disputed tax arrears only and, therefore, even if existing tax
liability which includes both admitted as well as disputed liability is reduced
to admitted liability as a result of subsequent order, it does not take case
outside purview of Scheme though it may affect quantum of tax arrears. As a
result order of both Assessing Officer and designated Authority required to be
quashed. – [CIT v. Shaily Engg. Plastics Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 437 (SC)/[2003] 179 CTR
14 : 126 Taxman 177 (SC)]
(ii) When assessee failed to present any material
evidence : Yes
The issuance of a subsequent
rectification order that restores the original order is permissible in
instances where the assessee has failed to present any material evidence to
support their case.
In the context of rectification
under the Income Tax Act, tax authorities have the discretion to revisit and
amend previous orders. This is particularly relevant when the initial order was
made based on the available evidence at that time. If the assessee subsequently
does not provide any new or compelling material to substantiate their claims or
arguments, the tax authority may find it appropriate to reinstate the original
order.
The rationale behind this
permissibility lies in the principle that rectification should serve to correct
errors and ensure fairness in the assessment process. If the assessee has not
furnished sufficient evidence to justify a departure from the original order,
there is a valid basis for restoring that order. In such cases, tax officials
can reasonably conclude that the previous determination remains valid, as no
new facts or evidence have emerged to warrant a change.
In absence of any material to show that interest income was
business income, such income could not be treated as business income of
assessee in order to allow set off of brought forward business loss from
earlier years against said interest income
Assessee was engaged in business of
share trading. During relevant years, it earned certain interest income which
was declared as ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer completed
the assessment accepting the return of income. Subsequently, the assessee filed
an application under section 154 contending that interest income was to be
taxed as business income, which was eligible for set off against business loss.
The Assessing Officer allowed rectification application. Subsequently, the
Assessing Officer passed another rectification order under section 154, holding
that interest income was liable to be taxed as ‘income from other sources’. The
Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal confirmed the subsequent
rectification order holding that in absence of any material on record, showing
interest income as business income, order so passed was to be confirmed. The assessee filed instant appeal submitting
that issue was a complex one and, thus, the Assessing Officer could not
exercise power of rectification available under section 154.
Held
: The
question for determination in the instant case was whether the income offered
by the assessee arising out of interest which the assessee himself had
disclosed as an income from other sources could be permitted to be set off
against the carry forward business losses. If the contention is that this question
which arose for consideration was a very complex question, which could not have
been considered under section 154, then the initial prayer of the assessee
could not also have been considered under section 154. The assessee cannot be
permitted to have two standards for the selfsame issue. If he chooses to raise
the jurisdictional sword, then he shall be perished by the same sword. The
submission that the Assessing Officer was satisfied, after verifying all
records, when he passed first order under section 154 is altogether
unmeritorious. Thus, such submission advanced by the assessee is rejected.
The question is whether the judgment
of the Tribunal is perverse. The Tribunal has recorded reasons and the
correctness of those reasons was not disputed. The assessee submitted that all
the records had already been verified by the Assessing Officer while initially
exercising jurisdiction under section 154, but it does not deny that the
alleged records were not once again produced either before the Commissioner (Appeals)
or before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in taking the view
that they did. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. - [Trade Apartment Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 231 Taxman 578 : 57 taxmann.com 161
(Cal.)]
Revisional jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner is a special provision aimed at safeguarding the interests of the Revenue. In exercising this power, the Commissioner is not limited to merely confirming or rejecting the rectified order; he may issue directions, including modifying the order or setting it aside for a fresh assessment, depending on the findings from the inquiry
The assessee-company filed its
return for the assessment year 1992-93 declaring its income at Rs. 26.66 lakhs.
The order of assessment was completed under section 143(3) determining the
assessable income as Rs. 35.40 lakhs. The Commissioner invoked its jurisdiction
under section 263 and set aside the order of assessment. He excluded Rs. 27.63
lakhs towards transport receipts and Rs. 1.42 lakhs towards interest from the
assessee's total income in the light of the provisions of sections 80HHC and
80-I. He directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment order. The
assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The assessee contended that
rectification proceedings were initiated after the assessment was completed,
but the Assessing Officer made no modification/amendment in regard to the
purported exclusion of income under sections 80HH and 80-I on account of
non-inclusion of transport receipts and interest on the total income and, thus,
subsequently the Commissioner had no authority to initiate any proceedings
under section 263 thereof or otherwise. The Tribunal held that the order passed
under section 154 having been made upon due consideration of the explanation of
the assessee for the proposed rectification on the point of excess deduction
under sections 80HH and 80-I, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to make any
order under section 263 thereof. The High Court rejected application under
section 256(2) observing that no substantial question of law arose out of
order.
Held : The scope and ambit of a
proceeding for rectification of an order under section 154 and a proceeding for
revision under section 263 are distinct and different. Order of rectification
can be passed on certain contingencies. It does not confer a power of review.
If an order of assessment is rectified by the Assessing Officer in terms of
section 154, the same itself may be a subject-matter of a proceeding under
section 263. The power of revision under section 263 is exercised by a higher
authority. It is a special provision. The revisional jurisdiction is vested in
the Commissioner. An order thereunder can be passed if it is found that the
order of assessment is prejudicial to the revenue. In such a proceeding, he may
not only pass an appropriate order in exercise of the said jurisdiction; but in
order to enable him to do it, he may make such inquiry as he deems necessary in
this behalf.
When an order is passed by a higher
authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles
of judicial discipline.
When different jurisdictions are
conferred upon different authorities to be exercised on different conditions,
both may not be held to be overlapping with each other. Jurisdiction under
section 154 is only to be exercised by him when there is an error apparent on
the face of the record. It does not confer any power of review. An order of
assessment may or may not be rectified. If an order of rectification is passed
by the assessing authority, the rectified order shall be given effect to.
However, only because an order of assessment has undergone rectification at the
hands of the Assessing Officer, the same would not mean that revisional
authority shall be denuded of exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Such an
interpretation would run counter to the scheme of the Act.
Power of review and/or rectification
is not akin to an administrative power. An administrative function and judicial
function operate in two different places. Whereas a judicial function must be
exercised by the authority invested therewith in terms of the provisions of the
statute and on the basis of the materials on record; an administrative order
may although, inter alia, have to be passed by a statutory authority but the
same must be confined within the four corners of the statute. There may,
however, be an element of discretion. Order by a judicial functionary is
subject to appeal or revision. An administrative order may or may not be. An
order of assessment is subject to exercise of an order of a revisional
jurisdiction under section 263. Doctrine of merger in such a case will have no
application.
Initiation of a proceeding under
section 263 cannot be held to have become bad in law only because an order of
rectification was passed. No such hard and fast rule can be laid down. Each
case is required to be considered on its own facts. In a given situation, the
High Court may be held to be entitled to set aside both orders and remit the
matter for consideration of the matter afresh. But it would not be correct to
contend that only because a proceeding for rectification was initiated
subsequently, the revisional jurisdiction could not have been invoked under any
circumstances whatsoever. If such a proceeding was initiated the contesting
parties could bring the same to the notice of the Commissioner so as to enable
him to take into consideration the subsequent events also. It goes without
saying that if and when the Commissioner takes up for consideration a
subsequent event, the assessee would be entitled to make its submission also in
regard thereto. Therefore, the impugned judgment was to be set aside. (Related
Assessment year : 1992-93) – [CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR
322 : 207 CTR 201 : 158 Taxman 160 (SC)]
Query
11 : What is the time limit for making application
under section 154? & What is the time limit for the disposing off the
application under section 154?
Answer : (i) Time limit for disposal of application:
After receiving a rectification
application from the assessee, the tax authority should dispose of the
application within six months, commencing from the date the application was
made, either by (a) accepting the claim or (b) refusing the claim [Section
154(8) & Instruction No. 2/2016 dated 15.02.2016].
(ii) Time limits for passing an order under
Section 154:
§ Provisions of Section 154(7): The time limit for seeking rectification under
Section 154 is four years after the end of the financial year in which the
original order was made.
§ When the taxpayer becomes aware of the demand at a later
stage: In cases
where the taxpayer becomes aware of the demand only at the stage of refund
adjustment, the Assessing Officer is required to act on the rectification
application, even if the four-year time limit under Section 154(7) has expired
[CBDT Circular No. 4/2012, dated 20.06.2012].
As
per Section 154(8) of the Act where an application for amendment is made by the
taxpayer with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from record, the Assessing
Officer shall pass an order, within a period of six months from the end of the
month in which such an application is received, by either making an amendment
or refusing to allow the claim.
Section
154(4) of the Act provides that rectification order shall be passed in writing
by the Assessing Officers.
CBDT Instruction No. 2/2016 dated
15.02.2016
Subject
: Passing rectification order under section 154 Income-tax Act, 1961 -
regarding
Instances have come to the notice of the
Board that in some cases rectification order under section 154 of
the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is being passed by the Assessing Officer
on AST System without giving copy of the order to the taxpayer concerned. This
is causing grievance to the taxpayers as they remain unaware of such orders and
consequentially, are unable to pursue the matter further, either in appeal or
rectification, if required.
2. Sub-section (4) of section 154 of the Act
mandates that rectification order shall be passed in writing by the Income-tax
authorities. Therefore, on consideration of the matter, the Board hereby
directs that all rectification applications must be disposed of after passing
an order in writing, to be duly served upon the taxpayer concerned and not by
merely making necessary rectification on the AST System.
3. The contents of this Instruction may be
brought to the notice of all for necessary compliance.
(Rohit Garg)
Deputy
Secretary to the Government of India
CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2012, dated
20.06.2012
Subject :
Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income-tax authorities - Instructions
to subordinate authorities - Authorization of AOs in certain cases to
rectify/reconcile disputed arrear demand
The Board
has been apprised that in certain cases the assessees have disputed the figures
of arrear demands shown as outstanding against them in the records of the
Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officers have expressed their inability to
correct/reconcile such disputed arrear demand on the ground that the period of
limitation of four years as provided under sub-section (7) of section 154 of
the Act has expired.
Further,
in some cases, the Assessing Officers have uploaded such disputed arrear demand
on the Financial Accounting System (FAS) portal of Centralized Processing
Center (CPC), Bengaluru which has resulted in adjustment of refund arising out
of processing of Returns against such arrear demand which has been disputed by
such assessees on the grounds that either such demand has already been paid or
has been reduced/ eliminated in the appeals, etc. The arrear demands, in these
cases also were not corrected / reconciled for the reason that the period of
limitation of four years has elapsed.
2. The Board, in consideration of genuine
hardship faced by the abovementioned class of cases, in exercise of powers
vested under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, hereby authorize the Assessing
Officers to make appropriate corrections in the figures of such disputed arrear
demands after due verification/reconciliation and after examining the same on
merits, whether by way of rectification or otherwise, irrespective of the fact
that the period of limitation of four years as provided under section 154(7) of
the Act has elapsed.
3. In view of the above the following has been
decided: -
(a) In the category of cases where
based on the figure of arrear demand uploaded by the Assessing Officer but
disputed by the assessee, the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bengaluru
has already adjusted any refund arising out of processing of return, the
jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall verify the claim of the assessee on
merits. After due verification of any such claim on merits, the Assessing
Officer shall issue refund of the excess amount, if any, so adjusted by CPC due
to inaccurate figures of arrear demand uploaded by the Assessing Officer. The
Assessing Officer, in appropriate cases, will also upload amended figure of
arrear demand on the Financial Accounting System (FAS) portal of Centralized
Processing Center (CPC), Bengaluru wherever there is balance outstanding arrear
demand still remaining after aforesaid correction/ reconciliation.
(b) In other cases, where the
assessee disputes and requests for correction of the figures of arrear demand,
whether uploaded on CPC or not uploaded and still lying in the records of the
Assessing Officer, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall verify the claim
of the assessee on merits and after due verification of such claim, will make
suitable correction in the figure of arrear demand in his records and upload
the correct figure of arrear demand on CPC portal.
4. It is specifically clarified that these
instructions would apply only to the cases where the figures of arrear demand
is to be reconciled/ corrected - whether such arrear demand has been uploaded
by the Assessing Officer on to Financial Accounting System (FAS) of CPC or it
is still in the records of the Assessing Officer.
This may
be brought to the notice of all the officers of your CCA region.
CBDT
Circular No. 71, dated 20.12.1971
Board’s authorisation
for taking action under section 154 beyond time limit specified under section
154(7) in cases of protective assessments requiring to be cancelled - Order
under section 119(2)(b)
CBDT
Circular No. 71, dated 20.12.1971
Subject : Board’s authorisation for taking action under section 154 beyond time
limit specified under section 154(7) in cases of protective assessments
requiring to be cancelled - Order under section 119(2)(b)
1. Where the same income
was assessed, as a protective measure, in the hands or more than one assessee
or as the income of more than one assessment year, and one or more of these
protective assessments needs to be cancelled as a result of some of the
relevant assessments having become final and conclusive, it has been the
practice of the Income-tax Department to cancel the redundant assessments under
section 154, treating these as involving mistakes apparent from the records.
This is being done by the Income-tax Officers either suo motu or on
applications made by assessees. Sometimes, it is not possible to take action
under section 154 in such cases because of the operation of the time limit laid
down in sub-section (7) of section 154. Since the operation of this time limit
causes genuine hardship to the affected assessees, the Central Board of Direct
Taxes, in exercise of the powers vested in them under clause (b) of sub-section
(2) of section 119, hereby authorises the Income-tax Officer to take action
under section 154, or to admit or dispose of on merits applications under
section 154 filed by assessees seeking relief, for cancelling such protective
assessments as have become redundant by waiving, if necessary, the time limit
fixed under subsection (7) of section 154.
2. Every case of the
relaxation of the time limit on the authority of this order shall be reported
by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, in whose
jurisdiction he is functioning within one month of the passing of such order.
Query
12 : If the Assessing Officer has
imposed a penalty and the assessment order is later annulled during appellate
proceedings, can the Assessing Officer withdraw or cancel the penalty order
under Section 154?
Answer
: Yes. The cancellation of order of levy of
penalty falls within purview of Section 154 (Circular No. 81 dated 26.03.1972)
Circular No. 81, dated 26.03.1972
[Suparaerseded] 26 March 1972
Subject : Penalties based on
cancelled/annulled assessments - Authorisation by the Board for taking action
in respect of such penalties under section 154 beyond the time limit specified
under section 154(7) - Order under section 119(2)(a)/(b)
I am directed to invite a
reference to the Board’s Circular No. 71 [F. No. 245/25/ 71-A & PAC], dated
26.03.1972 and to say that the CBDT have passed a revised order of date in
supersession of their earlier order dated 28.02.1972, a copy of which was sent
with the Board’s above-noted Circular dated 26.03.1972. A copy of this revised
order is attached herewith. This may be brought to the notice of ITOs/AACs/IACs
in your charge.
Circular No. 87 [F. No.
245/25/71-A & PAC], dated 19.06.1972 in supersession of Circular No. 81
[F.No. 245/25/71-A & PAC], dated 26.03.1972.
ANNEX - ORDER REFERRED TO IN
CLARIFICATION
1. The Board’s Order F. No.
245/25/71-A & PAC, dated 28.02.1972 under section 119(2)(a)/(b) is hereby
superseded and substituted by the following order :
2.
It has been brought to the notice of the CBDT that sometimes the
income-tax assessment, on the basis of which an order of penalty has been
passed, is itself either cancelled or annulled and yet the order of penalty
survives. Where such a penalty order has not been made subject of appeal or
where it has been confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
or on revision petition by the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, there will
be justification for cancellation of the penalty order by the income-tax
authority concerned under section 154; if the penalty order of the ITO/AAC/IAC
is final, the respective authority will be entitled to cancel it, but if the
latest position is as per appellate order of AAC or revision order of CIT/Addl.
CIT, the competent authority to act under section 154 will be the AAC or the
Commissioner/Additional Commissioner having regard to the provisions of section
154(1A).
3.
In the above context it has been pointed out that action under section
154 by the aforesaid authorities in the types of cases mentioned above cannot
sometimes be taken because of expiry of time limit under section 154(7). To
obviate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board in exercise of the powers
vested in them by section 119(2)(a)/(b), hereby authorise the
ITOs/AACs/IACs/Addl. CITs/CITs to take action under section 154 suo motu or to
admit applications under section 154 filed by the assessees seeking
cancellation of penalty orders of the type mentioned above, waiving for this
purpose, as may be necessary, the time limit prescribed under section 154(7).
It is clarified that this order will not apply to:
(a) penalties which stand confirmed by the
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal/High Court/Supreme Court ;
(b) penalties based on assessments which have
been set aside for being framed de novo ; and
(c) penalties in respect of assessments for which
appeals are still pending.
Query 13 : While
making the assessment for the assessment year 2001-02, which is the first year
of assessment, the Assessing Officer allowed full deduction in respect of
preliminary expenses incurred before the commencement of business in computing
the taxable income for this year. Now, after two years, he has issued a notice
under section 154, proposing to add-back 4/5th of the expenditure
saying that only 1/5th of the expenditure is allowable in terms
of section 35D of the Income-tax Act. Is the Assessing Officer
correct in his approach ?
Answer : Yes. The full deduction was not
correct in view of the provisions contained in section 35D.
Query 14 : Whether Non consideration of Jurisdictional
Court ruling is a ‘mistake apparent from record’ and can be Rectifiable under
section 154?
Answer : Yes,
Non consideration of Jurisdictional Court ruling is a ‘mistake apparent from
record’ and Rectifiable under section 154
Assessee, club
filed return of income declaring Nil income and shown gross income of Rs. 9.94
Cr including interest income of Rs. 39.33 Lac which was claimed as not taxable
on principle of mutuality; During assessment, Revenue rejected Assessee’s claim
of exemption on interest income of Rs. 39.33 Lac and held that the same is
taxable; CIT(A) relied on jurisdictional High Court judgment in Assessee’s own
case for Assessment year 1997-98 and remitted back to Revenue with a direction
to ascertain as to whether interest income was utilized to achieve its primary
objects and consider as to whether ‘principle of mutuality’ will apply or not;
Subsequently, a filed rectification application under Section 154 was filed by
the Revenue on the premise that the jurisdictional High Court judgment
categorically excludes the interest income from FDs from the principle of
mutuality; Consequently, CIT(A) relied on Supreme Court judgment in ACIT
v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) and
allowed Revenue’s miscellaneous application under Section 154 and held that
non-consideration of a ratio decidendi or decision of jurisdictional High Court
would amount to mistake apparent on record;
Chennai
ITAT dismisses Assessee’s appeal, holds that non-consideration of decision of
jurisdictional Court is a mistake apparent on record and rectifiable under
Section 154; Relies on Supreme Court judgment in Saurashtra Kutch and holds that CIT(A) rightly exercised its power
to rectify the order under Section 154 and restricted the Assessee’s claim of
exemption on interest income on FDs considering the judicial dictum laid down
by the High Court in Assessee’s own case for Assessment year 1996-97 which
relied on Supreme Court judgment in Bangalore
Club v. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 509 (SC) to
hold that interest income earned by a trust cannot be exempted from taxation on
the principle of mutuality; ITAT observes that an exception to claim exemption
on interest income has been made that it has been specifically utilised for the
primary object, however, Assessee fails to demonstrate during the assessment
that investment in form of FDs were made with a definite idea to utilise it in
any specific project despite being aware of the jurisdictional High Court
judgment; Observes that CIT(A) allowed Assessee’s claim of exemption on
interest income since the said jurisdictional High Court judgment was not
placed before it and neither any additional evidence was filed by the Assessee
to claim the benefit of application of interest income on the basis of
exemption laid down in the said judgment; Thus, dismisses Assessee’s appeal.
[In favour of revenue] (Related Assessment years :
2016-17 & 2017-18) – [Madras
Gymkhana Club v. ITO [TS-683-ITAT-2024(CHNY)] - Date of Judgement : 21.08.2024 (ITAT Chennai)]
Query 15 : Whether, Section 24(b), 80C & 80D deduction can be denied
for not claiming in Income Tax Return?
Answer :
Section 24(b), 80C & 80D deduction can not
be denied for not claiming in Income Tax Return
In the original return of income
for the assessment year 2014-15, the appellant did not claim deductions of Rs.
1,50,000 under section 24(b) for interest on housing loan, Rs. 1,00,000 under
section 80C, and Rs. 29,136 under section 80D. Subsequently, the appellant
filed a rectification petition under section 154 of the Act, seeking to rectify
this omission. The appellant provided evidence supporting the deductions
claimed, including Form No. 16 showing deductions under the respective sections
and certificates from Axis Bank. The certificates corroborated the payments
made for interest on housing loan and principal repayment, among other relevant
deductions.
The appellant’s argument
emphasized that the failure to claim deductions in the original return should
not be a reason to reject the claims. Referring to Circular No. 14 of 1955 dated 11.04.1955 issued
by the CBDT in which stated that the officers of the department must not take
advantage of the ignorance of the assessee about his rights and it is their
duty to assist the tax payer in every reasonable way particularly in the matter
of claiming and securing relief. the appellant asserted that the revenue authorities must assist
taxpayers in securing legitimate deductions and reliefs.
On the other hand, ld.
DR vehemently argued and mentioned that assessee is not eligible for any of the
deduction as it was not claimed during the filing of the return. Therefore, the
claim before the ld. AO cannot be sustained without filing the revised return.
He respectfully relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. v. CIT
(2006) 284 ITR 3231 (SC).
The appellant’s counsel cited
several cases where appellate authorities were held to have the power to
entertain additional grounds or claims for deductions. The judgments of the
Delhi High Court in CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 42 :
172 TAXMAN 258 (Del.) and Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (1992)
64 Taxman 129 (Del.)
were relied upon to argue that
appellate authorities can admit new grounds or evidence in the interests of
justice. The ITAT Kolkata considered the submissions of both parties and
examined relevant legal provisions held that the failure to claim deductions in
the original return should not automatically lead to their rejection. The ITAT
referred to the Circular No. 14 of 1955 dated 11.04.1955 and the principle of assisting
taxpayers in securing rightful reliefs.
The ITAT observed that appellate
authorities possess the power to consider unclaimed deductions, provided that
the claim is bona fide and supported by relevant evidence. It distinguished
between the powers of assessing authorities and appellate authorities in this
context.
Here, two issues are
formulated, weather the unclaimed deduction can be claim before the assessing
authority without filing the revised return and weather the power of the
appellate authority can allow the claim of duction which was not claimed in the
return of income. We adjudicate the second issue. In our opinion the appellate
authority has coterminous power to accept the deduction which was not claimed
in ITR. So, the entire claim under section 80C is eligible claim of deduction.
During the hearing the assessee had submitted all relevant documents which are
also considered by the appellate authority. We accept the claim of assessee
related to deduction under section 24(b), 80C & 80D of the Act.
Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to allow
the deduction, claimed by the assessee. [In favour of assessee] (Related Assessment year : 2014-15) - [Sandip Chattopadhyay v. ITO - ITA
No. 125/Kol/2023 - Date of Judgement : 28.07.2023 (ITAT Kolkata)]
Query 16 : Whether Reassessment proceedings initiated
during pendency of rectification proceedings is unsustainable ?
Answer :
No, Reassessment proceedings
initiated during pendency of rectification proceedings is not sustainable.
Supreme Court allows
Assessee’s appeal against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, holds
the reassessment proceedings to be invalid as the Assessee was also subject to
rectification proceedings which were not withdrawn by the Revenue; High Court
had upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings for Assessment year 1995-96
on the basis that the rectification proceedings were time barred and also
dismissed Assessee’s review petition; Pursuant to initiation of reassessment
proceedings, the reassessment order was
passed by the Revenue which was set aside by ITAT due to parallel pendency of
rectification proceedings whereas High Court remanded the matter back to ITAT
by observing that rectification proceedings were time-barred as per Section
154(7), therefore, invalid and held reassessment proceedings as maintainable;
On Assessee’s appeal, Supreme Court notes that when reassessment notice was
issued, the notice under Section 154 was already issued for disallowing Section
80HHC deduction since the Assessee claimed bad debts with respect to
non-materialized exports; Supreme Court opines, “...the High Court has
committed serious error in observing and holding that the notice under Section
154 was invalid as the same was beyond the period of limitation as
prescribed/provided under Section 154(7) of the Act. It is required to be noted
that the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act were not the subject matter before
the High Court.”; Further observes that in the absence of any specific
withdrawal of the proceedings under Section 154, the proceedings can be said to
be pending, thus, it was not permissible on the part of the Revenue to initiate
the reassessment proceedings; Supreme Court quashes the High Court judgment and
restores the ITAT order. (Related Assessment year : 1995-96) – [S.M. Overseas
(P) Ltd. v. CIT [TS-942-SC-2022] – Date of Judgement : 07.12.2022 (SC)]
Query 17 : Whether
Revenue
bound to give advance tax credit inadvertently left unclaimed in Income Tax Return
?
Answer : Yes, claim for credit of advance tax
reflecting in Form 26AS although not made in the original return of income
under Section 139(1) or revised return of income under Section 139(5) is a
mistake apparent on record and falls within the scope of rectification order
under Section 154. Thus, Revenue is bound to give advance tax credit
inadvertently left unclaimed in Income Tax Return
Mumbai ITAT holds that claim for credit of advance
tax reflecting in Form 26AS although not made in the original return of
income under Section 139(1) or revised return of income under Section 139(5) is
a mistake apparent on record and falls within the scope of rectification order
under Section 154; Observes that Section 219 also mandates that the credit
of advance tax shall be given to the Assessee in the regular assessment,
accordingly, Assessee’s inadvertence to claim credit for the advance tax while filing
its return of income or filing revised return of income does not absolve the Assessing
Officer from its statutory duty to grant the credit in regular assessment,
particularly when the challan payments of advance tax are duly reflected in
Form 26AS which forms part of the record of Revenue; Assessee-Company engaged
in the business of providing freight forwarding and supply chain services to
global customers filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 18.58 Cr
which was subjected to assessment wherein income was assessed at Rs. 38.23 Cr
and certain additions were made which was affirmed by CIT(A); ITAT partly
allowed Assessee’s appeal; Subsequently at the time of giving effect to
ITAT order, Assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154 and
claimed credit of advance tax of Rs. 1.10 Cr although not claimed in the
original return of income which was rejected by Assessing Officer on the
premise that claim of advance tax credit is made after a lapse of almost 3
years of completion of assessment; CIT(A) dismissed Assessee’s appeal against
rejection of rectification application under Section 154; ITAT observes that it
is an undisputed fact that claim of the Assessee is limited to the grant
of advance tax credit paid during the year although not claimed in the
return of income and does not pertain to fresh claim of any deduction/allowance
which needs to verified with documentation; Observes that challan payments of
advance tax made twice during the year under consideration are duly reflected
in Form 26AS; Thus, holds that Assessing Officer erred in not rectifying this
apparent mistake when the same was pointed out by Assessee vide rectification
application under Section 154; Allows Assessee's appeal by directing Assessing Officer
to grant the credit of advance tax of Rs. 1.10 Cr paid by the Assessee and sets
aside the CIT(A) order. [In favour of assessee] (Related Assessment year :
2013–14) – [Damco
India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [TS-474-ITAT-2023(Mum)] – Date of Judgement : 10.08.2023
(ITAT Mumbai)]
