TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciating that the additions of 2,75,00,000/- for allegedly raising of money as share capital of Rs. 55,80,000 and share premium of Rs. 2,19,20,000 u/s 68 is clearly on wrong fact apparent from record and the LD. Addl CIT(A) ought to examine the assessment records as well as records of the assessee, to find that such sum was already scrutinized and examined in AY 2006-07 and no such credits credited in the books of accounts in the impugned pervious year ended on 31.03.2011. 3. That the Ld. Addl CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO rejecting the rectification without appreciating that the another additions of Rs.40,00,000/- received as share application money was a liability and same was paid in subsequent year. 4. That the order of the Ld. Addl CIT(A), is bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that no such sum was received by the assessee as alleged by the AO and the addition made by AO is a mistake apparent from records and the issue is well covered under the scope of section 154 of the Act. 5. The Ld. Addl CIT (A) was wrong in adjudicating that the information on which such addition was made re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are capital, securities premium and share application money in the assessment order passed under section 144/143(3) of the Act were factually erroneous and pertained to earlier years. The Assessing Officer disposed of the said application vide communication dated 22.10.2021 stating that the issue sought to be raised does not fall within the purview of section 154 of the Act and, therefore, no rectification could be carried out. 5.2. Section 154 of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. It is a well-settled principle that such a mistake must be glaring, obvious and not debatable, and that the provision does not permit review or re-examination of an assessment on contested or interpretative issues. Whether a particular credit pertains to one year or another, whether evidence was properly appreciated, and whether additions under section 68 of the Act were justified these are all matters requiring detailed verification and appreciation of facts, which fall squarely outside the limited mandate of section 154 of the Act. 5.3. The Appellant's rectification application effectively sought to revisit the additions made in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that the share capital was received in the financial year relevant for the AY 2006-07 and was not received in the impugned AY 2011-12 while the addition has been made for the share capital and share premium and share application money in AY 2011-12. A rectification application filed in this regard was dismissed in a cryptic manner. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld. 6. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). We have to examine what is a 'mistake apparent from record' which can be rectified u/s 154 of the Act and whether the addition made on account of share capital and share premium received in A.Y. 2006-07 could be added in the income for A.Y. 2011-12 and could be rectified on an application made in this behalf by the assessee. It has been held in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) that "A mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord cannot be said to be the record of the particular assessment, but the entire record of assessee relating to all the assessment years." 8. It is further held in the case of Maharana Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) while considering the term 'record' as under: The words used in the section 35 of 1922 Act are "apparent from the record" and the record does not mean only the order of assessment but it comprises all proceedings on which the assessment order is based and the Income-tax Officer is entitled for the purpose of exercising his jurisdiction under section 35 of 1922 Act to look into the whole evidence and the law applicable to ascertain whether there was an error. If he doubts the written down value of the previous year it is open to him to check up the previous calculations and if he finds any mistake it is open to him to make fresh calculations in accordance with the law applicable including the rules made thereunder. The power under section 35 of 1922 Act is no doubt limited to rectification of mistakes which are apparent from the record. A mistake contemplated by this section is not one which is to be discovered as a resu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. [1999] 102 TAXMAN 1 (MAD.), it has been held as under: "Section 154 opens with the words 'with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. . . .' The term 'record' is not defined in the section or in the definition section of the Act. For determining the true scope of this provision and the meaning to be properly assigned to the term 'record' it is necessary to keep in view the object of the provision and the nature of the power conferred on the authorities under that provision. These are the criteria which the Supreme Court adopted while considering the scope and effect of section 263 and the meaning to be assigned to the word 'record' used in that provision. The object with which power is conferred by section 154 is as stated in the marginal heading 'rectification of mistake'. The principal condition for exercising the power under section 154 is the existence of a mistake in the record. The mistake is not to be a mistake which requires in-depth probing to discover but is a mistake which is 'apparent' from the record. The power conferred by this provision is only to enable the authorities to rectify the 'apparent' mistakes in the record. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en effect to if it is not rectified within the time allowed by law. However, such an order cannot be regarded as having become final until the expiry of the period available for such rectification. The absence of the definition of the word 'record', however, cannot have the consequence of limiting its meaning to a very narrow and limited sphere of the record of the original proceedings alone. The period of four years prescribed in the section for initiating rectification proceedings is meant to protect the assessee against unduly delayed proceedings for rectification as also to enable the authorities to have sufficient time within which to give effect to the consequence of any orders which may be rectified or revised or modified when they have a direct bearing upon the assessment order sought to be rectified under section 154(1). Such orders would form part of the record which is available for scrutiny by the officers exercising power under section 154. The 'record' for purpose of section 154(1) is the record available to the authorities at the time of initiation of proceedings for rectification and not merely the record of the original proceeding sought to be rectified." ....