TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that the term "record" for the purposes of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall include the entire records of the assessee for all the assessment years and not pertaining to only the year under consideration? 2. The sequence of events commences from assessment year (AY) 1992-93 when a claim in terms of the applicable provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') had been made by the assessee on accrual basis in respect of an amount of Rs. 65,22,000/-, being additional charges levied by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) for belated clearance of energy bill (also known as surcharge for la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elated to a contractual liability, the assessee would be entitled to deduction in the year in which the dispute had been settled. The issue was set aside by the Tribunal to the file of the Assessing Officer to be redone in accordance with law. The operative portion of the Tribunal's order reads thus: '18. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. CIT(A) has held that this amount was disputed. It was not paid to the Government. As such the claim was inadmissible as per the prescription of section 43B of the Act. It is not clear that how the amount of disputed liability towards the State Electricity Board comes within the ken of section 43B. An accrued liability though disputed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in respect of AY 1998-99, seeking rectification of what it believed, was a mistake apparent on record. Inter alia, the assessee makes the position clear before the Assessing Authority that the demand arose on a contractual liability and that the dispute had, in fact, been settled in the financial year relevant to AY 1998-99. The facts have been captured in that petition as follows: 8. Rs. 65,22,000/- paid as additional charges to APSES (Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board) has been disallowed in the assessment year 1992-93 vide your order dated 19-1-2006 made u/s. l54 rw 254. This was in pursuance of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26th July 1995 in ITA No.l871/Mds/1995 for the assessment year 1992-93. The Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 154 provides for rectification of mistakes apparent from records and there ought to have been a finding of the assessing officer as to why the issue raised by the assessee did not constitute a mistake apparent on record. A bald assertion of the nature made, does not satisfy the statutory stipulation. 12. In first appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the claim by way of a specific ground of appeal. The error committed by the assessing authority was, however, perpetrated in first appeal as well, where the CIT(A), vide order dated 06.02.2008, merely confirms the order under Section 154 stating that he agrees with the assessing officer that there is no mistake apparent on record, liable to be rectified. Again, we find no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication seeking rectification of Return for AY 1997-98. It was hence incumbent upon the assessing officer, while disposing the application under Section 154, to have looked into the plea for rectification on the merits thereof. If at all the Assessing Officer wished to test the claim of the assessee and verify whether the amounts had actually been paid, necessary documentary evidence could well have been sought. 17. Thirdly, the Tribunal states that the Assessing Authority has not tested whether the amounts were actually paid at the time of original assessment proceedings. This statement is again misconceived for the reason that there could be no verification of a claim that was never made by the assessee in the return of income. In fac....