TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 01 day in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. In the present case assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the learned JCIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by holding that the rectification is not allowed because it needs certain investigation and verification. 2. That the learned JCIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by ignoring the figures of capital receipt mentioned in the computation of income and not considering relief to the appellant. 3. That the learned JCIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by not passing a speaking order and also by ignoring various case laws pointed by the appellant. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s Apeejay Education Society, is an educational society duly registered under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 2022-23, it filed its return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the assessment order, the rectification order and the submissions of the assessee, observed that the assessment for the year under consideration had been completed under section 143(3) after denying the exemption claimed under section 11 and after making certain disallowances of expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had already challenged the original assessment order in appeal and had simultaneously sought rectification of certain aspects of the computation under section 154. 7.1 The Ld. CIT(A) held that the relief sought by the assessee involved verification and investigation of the receipts and expenditure and could not be regarded as a mere arithmetical or patent mistake apparent from the record. It was observed that section 154 does not contemplate a review or reconsideration of an order already passed and that matters requiring examination of facts or involving two possible views fall outside the limited scope of rectification proceedings. 7.2 The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the issues concerning denial of exemption under section 11 and the allowability or computation of expenditure were alre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AR, while the Assessing Officer allowed only the revenue expenditure, he simultaneously adopted the total receipts including capital receipts, thereby resulting in an erroneous computation of taxable income. It was argued that this computational inconsistency was apparent from the assessment records themselves, required no elaborate investigation and, therefore, constituted a mistake apparent from the record liable to be rectified under section 154 of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the authorities below erred in treating the issue as debatable and in rejecting the rectification application merely because the assessment order had separately been challenged in appeal. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance was placed upon various judicial precedents to contend that an apparent computational error is amenable to rectification under section 154 of the Act. 11.2 On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the grievance raised by the assessee goes to the very manner of computation of income after denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act. Such a dispute, according to the Ld. DR, necessarily requires exami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious, patent and self-evident and not one which requires a long-drawn process of reasoning or on which two opinions are reasonably possible. A debatable question of law or fact can never be brought within the ambit of section 154. 11.6 The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC). Their Lordships clarified that while non-consideration of a binding judgment may itself constitute a mistake apparent from the record, the jurisdiction under section 154 nevertheless remains confined to correction of manifest and patent errors and cannot be exercised for adjudicating contentious issues requiring appreciation of facts or interpretation of law. 11.7 Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, we find that the grievance raised by the assessee is intrinsically connected with the correctness of the computation of taxable income after denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act. Whether only revenue receipts ought to have been considered,....