TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Income Addition Appeal Dismissed: Section 154 Limits Correction to Apparent Mistakes Only, Detailed Review Not Allowed.</h1> <h3>Sheela Davis, Proprietrix Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS, GURUVAYOOR, TRICHUR. KERALA</h3> Sheela Davis, Proprietrix Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS, GURUVAYOOR, TRICHUR. KERALA - TMI Issues:1. Rectification under sec.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-2018.The judgment involves an appeal by the assessee against the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre's decision regarding rectification under sec.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-2018. The appellant contended that both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in refusing her rectification. The assessing officer had made an addition of Rs. 3,33,650/- towards the income returned by the appellant, which was the subject of the appeal. The appellant argued that the addition was unjustified as she had rectified the initial mistake of Rs. 4,63,000/- and the assessing officer had already deleted this amount. However, the tribunal noted that the appellant's sole ground for appeal required detailed investigation, which is beyond the scope of sec.154 rectification proceedings meant for correcting apparent mistakes on record. Citing the case of TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC), the tribunal held that the appeal was infructuous and dismissed it accordingly.In summary, the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre's decision regarding rectification under sec.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-2018. The appellant's contention that the assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 3,33,650/- was rejected as the rectification proceedings were limited to correcting mistakes apparent on record. The tribunal emphasized that detailed investigations or inquiries were not permissible under sec.154, citing the case law of TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). Consequently, the appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed by the tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
