2022 (2) TMI 422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us. "1. That the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 03.06.2018 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned order u/s 154 and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s. 154 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making disallowance of Rs. 2,47,380/-, on account of bonus paid by invoking provisions u/s 40A(3),....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lled for in her hands u/s.40A(3) of the Act. However, the AO not finding favour with the claim of the assessee, therein, vide his order u/s. 154 of the Act, dated 07.03.2017 made an addition/disallowance u/s.40A(3) of Rs. 2,47,380/- to the income that was originally assessed by him vide his order passed u/s.143(3), dated 03.03.2016. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) not finding any infirmity in the view taken by the AO, therein, upheld his order and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter before us. 6. At the very outset, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short "AR") for the assessee, that as the Ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owance of an amount u/s.40A(3) by no means can be brought within the realm of a mistake which could be held as being in the nature of a mistake which is glaring, patent, apparent and obvious from record, therein rendering the assessment order passed by him u/s.143(3) of the Act amenable for rectification under section 154 of the Act. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO, Company Circle-IV, Bombay vs. Volkart Brothers and Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), it is only a mistake apparent from the record, i.e., one which is obvious and patent and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions that can be rectified within the meaning o....