2025 (11) TMI 1401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rred to as "the Act"], whereby the learned CIT(A) upheld the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 dated 05.04.2024. The rectification proceedings were initiated in relation to the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 19.02.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 Information was received by the Assessing Officer from internal risk parameters of the Department that the assessee had undertaken substantial financial transactions during the relevant year in the nature of purchase and sale of immovable properties aggregating to Rs. 29,86,15,000/-, although no return of income had been filed. Based on such information, the Assessing Officer issued notice under s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the claim of deduction under section 54B as originally made in the return filed in response to notice under section 148. The assessment order specifically notes that the claim of Rs. 1,66,79,520/- under section 54B was examined and found correct. However, although the revised computation filed by the assessee on 12.12.2023 formed part of the electronic assessment record, the Assessing Officer did not deal with the enhanced claim of Rs. 25,41,885/- relating to Survey No. 21/1, nor did he record any finding regarding its admissibility or otherwise. The assessment was concluded by accepting the total income returned by the assessee at Rs. 2,90,63,110/-. 2.4 On noticing that the Assessing Officer had not considered the revised computati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Officer that since the additional claim was not made in the original return, the same could not be admitted through rectification proceedings under section 154. The learned CIT(A) further held that the remedy of the assessee lay in preferring a separate appeal against the reassessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B if he sought admission of the fresh claim. While doing so, the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate the allowability of the claim on merits and confined himself to the technical reasoning that there was no mistake apparent from the record. 3. The assessee is in further appeal before us and has raised the following specific grounds: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 21/1, Village Shela, had been duly furnished during the reassessment proceedings and formed an integral part of the assessment record. It was submitted that the omission to claim this amount in the return filed in response to notice under section 148 was purely inadvertent and was subsequently rectified by furnishing the revised computation along with complete documentary evidences relating to the purchase of the said agricultural land. 4. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The short controversy in the present appeal is whether the assessee's additional claim of deductio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er prior to completion of the assessment. 5.2 We note that the issue before us is not confined to the narrow scope of section 154. The present appeal is before the Tribunal under section 253 and is required to be adjudicated within the wider appellate jurisdiction conferred upon this forum. It is well settled that the appellate authorities under the Act, including the Tribunal, have jurisdiction to admit a legal claim of the assessee even if such claim was not made in the return, provided the relevant material is available on record. 5.3 At this stage, it is necessary to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he non-consideration of the claim occurred solely because the Assessing Officer confined himself to the amount claimed in the return. 5.5 Once the evidences were available on the assessment record, and once the assessee had brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer the enhanced claim before finalisation of assessment, the learned CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the claim on merits. The direction of the learned CIT(A) that the assessee should file a separate appeal against the reassessment order is not tenable in the present factual matrix because the rectification application itself was filed to correct an omission in the reassessment order and the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was confined to this issue alone. 5.6 Considerin....