Appeal allowed as CIT(A) overstepped in rectification, ITAT questions AO's jurisdiction for additions

The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the rectification order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 154. It held that the CIT(A) impermissibly reviewed the earlier order under the guise of rectification. The ITAT reiterated that in non-abated assessments, no addition could be made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during the search, questioning the AO's jurisdiction to make such additions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the rectification order passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether there was a mistake apparent from the record in the appellate order dated 31/10/2019.
3. Requirement of incriminating material for making additions in completed assessments before the date of search.
4. Validity of the addition of Rs. 22,69,397/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. Consideration of additional evidence by the CIT(A) while upholding the addition.
6. Discharge of the assessee's onus to explain share capital based on legal evidence.
7. Legality of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. Set-off of the addition made with the net loss assessed.
9. Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Rectification Order under Section 154:
The appeal challenges the rectification order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was condoned. The CIT(A) had initially quashed the AO’s order on jurisdictional grounds but later reviewed it under the guise of rectification, which the assessee contends is not permissible under Section 154, as it mandates only rectification of mistakes apparent from the record, not a review.

2. Mistake Apparent from Record:
The CIT(A) initially allowed the assessee's appeal on jurisdictional grounds, stating that the AO could not revisit the order without any incriminating material. However, the CIT(A) later rectified this order, arguing that crucial facts regarding new information received from Mauritius through the FTTR Division of CBDT were not considered initially. The assessee contended that no mistake apparent from the record existed, and the CIT(A)’s action amounted to an impermissible review rather than a rectification.

3. Requirement of Incriminating Material:
The CIT(A) initially quashed the assessment framed under Section 153A, citing that it was a non-abated assessment and the addition was made without any incriminating material found during the search. The rectification order, however, argued that the AO could use new information received post-search to make additions. The assessee maintained that, according to settled jurisprudence, no addition could be made in non-abated assessments without incriminating material found during the search.

4. Validity of Addition under Section 68:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 22,69,397/- under Section 68, citing that the assessee could not substantiate the creditworthiness and genuineness of the share transactions. The CIT(A) initially deleted this addition but later upheld it in the rectification order, arguing that the new information from Mauritius regarding the non-verifiable nature of the ultimate beneficiaries justified the addition. The assessee contended that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital were substantiated with legal evidence, and no addition could be made without incriminating material found during the search.

5. Consideration of Additional Evidence:
The CIT(A) in the rectification order dismissed the additional evidence provided by the assessee, arguing that it did not substantiate the creditworthiness of the ultimate beneficiaries. The assessee argued that the additional evidence was sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the investors.

6. Discharge of Onus by the Assessee:
The assessee argued that it had discharged its onus to explain the share capital by providing legal evidence such as bank statements, financial statements, and Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates. The CIT(A) initially accepted this but later rejected it in the rectification order, stating that the creditworthiness of the ultimate beneficiaries was not proven.

7. Legality of the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A:
The assessee argued that the assessment order was illegal as it was based on information obtained post-search and not on any incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A) in the rectification order argued that the AO could use new information received post-search to make additions, a view which the assessee contended was contrary to settled jurisprudence.

8. Set-off of Addition with Net Loss Assessed:
The assessee argued that the addition made by the AO should be set off against the net loss assessed. The CIT(A) in the rectification order upheld the AO’s action of not allowing the set-off, which the assessee contended was unjustified and contrary to the decisions of higher judicial authorities.

9. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The assessee denied liability to pay interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, arguing that the levy was unjustified, unwarranted, and excessive. This issue was not elaborately discussed in the judgment.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the rectification order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 154, holding that the CIT(A) had impermissibly reviewed his earlier order under the guise of rectification. The ITAT reiterated that in non-abated assessments, no addition could be made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during the search, and the AO's jurisdiction to make the addition was not legally valid.

---