TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 856
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred on facts and in law in confirming action of Assessing Officer invoking provisions of section 154 to make addition without any notice to the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in Rs.3,20,02,883/- confirming action of Assessing Officer in substituting addition of Rs.10,35,69,201/- made u/s 269SS in order passed u/s 143(3) dtd 29-12-2019 with section 69A without appreciating that neither such substation an mistake apparent on record not is permissible within the meaning of section 292B of the Act in as much as conditions specified in section 69A are also not getting satisfied in the case of appellant. Total Rs. 3,20,02,883/-" ITA No. 1031/Ahd/2023 "1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing Officer. No further notices were issued till completion of the assessment proceedings on 29-12-2019. After examining the explanations and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,012,5000/- for the reason that the assessee deposited cash in State Bank of India amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- and in the Panchmahal District Co-operative Bank Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,10,00,000/- during demonetization period but failed to furnish details of the same. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 69A amounting to Rs. 10,03,69,201/- in which section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also written with the assessment order passed. The assessee filed rectification application dated 04-10-2020 which was receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Authorized Representative further pointed out that the assessee submitted that the same was considered as Rs. 2,48,00,000/- and difference of Rs. 1,01,25,000/- was made as addition u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. A.R. submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer has clearly set out that the Assessing Officer accepted the activities of the assessee which is monitored by the Reserve Bank of India as well as by the registrar of co-operative societies. While doing so, the Assessing Officer opted not to issue any show cause to the assessee before making such addition, otherwise the assessee should have rectified the inadvertent error crept in while making submissions if any. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TCA Menon vs ITO 96 ITR 148 (Ker) ACIT vs Sudesh Kumar Gupta 184 ITD 651 (Jaipur) Hari Narain Gattani vs DG1T 186 ITD 434 (Jaipur) ACIT vs Sandesh Kumar Jain in ITA No. 41/Jab/2020 (Jabalpur)dtd 31-10-2022 DCIT vs Punjab Retail P Ltd in ITA No. 677/lnd/2019 dated 08-10-2021 6. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing the original assessment order has in fact made addition u/s. 69A which was also set out in para 2 of the application filed by the assessee u/s. 154 for rectification of the assessment order. The ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that 60% of tax rate u/s. 115BBE is applicable to assessment year 2017-18 in view of the decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment order by changing the same nomenclature as well as the content in consonance with section 69A, the observation in the original assessment order for the addition of section 69A does not fall as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act. While rectifying the order, the Assessing Officer should have confronted the assessee in consonance with the application of 69A in respect of unsecured loans which the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The rectification order is simply making it a typographical mistake but the assessee has made clear in application u/s. 154 of the Act that it is a typographical mistake but the very applicability of section 269SS in assessee's case will not/should not have been applied. Thus, the rectificati....