TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e investment which was accepted by AO in his original assessment order cannot be revised in an order u/s 154 as it cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record. We find that AO wants to change his view in the garb of rectification of mistake u/s 154 which is not permissible under the law. We find that the impugned order of the AO was passed u/s 154 and Section 154 of the IT Act mandates rectification of mistake apparent from record. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of ITO vs. Volkart Brothers and others [ 1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning, on points on which there may be conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at an issue which can be resolved through a long drawn process cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition u/s. 68 of the Act, despite the assessee having explained the source of investment with proper documentary evidences. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 2. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that as per the information available with the Department, the assessee had made investment of Rs. 68,63,000/-, expenses on registration of Rs. 15,000/- and stamp duty of Rs. 2,05,900/- totaling Rs. 70,83,900/- on 19.02.2010 for the year under consideration. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 03.10.2017 needed to be rectified u/s 154. The case was opened to check the source of investment of Rs. 70,83,900/- (Rs. 6863000 price of land Rs. 20,5900 stamp duty and Rs. 15000 registration fees) for the purchase of property vide purchase of deed no. 8637 dated 19.2.2010 in the name of assessee named Shri Arjun Singh who died later on dated 17.9.2013. The assessee (wife of Shri Arjun Singh) filed ITR declaring nil income on dated 08.8.2017. The assessee replied that she generated the said funds by taking advance money from my relatives at the time of sale of agriculture land. Here it has been observed that actual position regarding source of investment was as under:- Particulars of agri land Sale Deed no. date Total amount of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. Unexplained source of income Rs. 50,00,000/- Tax including Cess Rs. 144120/- Interest u/s. 234A for 85 months from 08/10 to 10/18 Rs. 14461 X 1% = 1229185 Interest u/s 234B for 93 months from 4/11 to 12/18 Rs. 14461 X 1% = 1315951 Tax effect Rs. 1446120+1229185+1315951 = 3991256/- In order to rectify the aforesaid mistakes an opportunity was provided to the assessee and notice was issued to the assessee on 11.03.2021 for 17.03.2021. On date fixed there was no compliance. Another opportunity was provided with an issue of notice u/s. 154 on 07.04.2021 for 15.04.2021. But no explanation was offered by the assessee despite being provided these opportunities. Thus, the AO passed the rectification order on 14.07.2021 with addition of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts to change his view in the guise of rectification of mistake under section 154 of the Act. She further submitted that it is a settled law that a mistake which can be established only with a long-drawn process of reasoning cannot be a mistake apparent from record. To support her aforesaid contention, she relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) as T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers dated 05.08.1971. In view of the aforesaid, Ld. AR has submitted that the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same may be quashed. 6. Ld. Sr. (DR) supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the riva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id finding of the AO was concluded after considering all the documentary evidences and personal appearances on behalf of the assessee preferred not to draw any adverse inference against the assessee. However, after conclusion of assessment, AO issued a notice under section 154 of the Act to the assessee stating that since the investment in the property was not properly explained by the assessee during the year under consideration, there is a mistake apparent from record rectifiable under section 154 of the Act and made the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- vide his order dated 14.07.2021 and in appellate proceedings the ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee. As per well established law it is not in dispute that the source of the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
