Kush Properties & Developers Pvt.Ltd, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,

ITA 2658/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6944 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P D KUDWA
• Keywords: Block assessment; Condonation of delay
• Section: 132; 10; 154

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , . . !, # BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, A M . / ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 M/S. KUSH PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., 122 STERLING CENTRE, 11 MOLEDINA ROAD, PUNE 411 001. PAN : AAACK8694D . / APPELLANT V/S THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PMT BUILDING, C WING 4 TH FLOOR, SHANKARSETH ROAD, SWARGATE, PUNE 411 037. . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 M/S. KUSH PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., 122 STERLING CENTRE, 11 MOLEDINA ROAD, PUNE 411 001. PAN : AAACK8694D . / APPELLANT V/S THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PMT BUILDING, C WING 4 TH FLOOR, SHANKARSETH ROAD, SWARGATE, PUNE 411 037. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.D. KUDWA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR / / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA , JM : OUT OF THE BUNCH OF TWO APPEALS, THE FIRST APPEAL IN ITA NO.2073/PN/2014 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF / DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.03.2017 2 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (APPEALS) DT.17.10.2014 PASSE D UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) RELATING TO BLOCK PERIOD 1997-98 TO 2003-04. THE ASSESS EE IN ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CENTRAL, PUNE DT.31. 01.2013 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BC(C) OF THE A CT RELATING TO BLOCK PERIOD 1997-98 TO 2003-04. 2. BOTH THE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S A PPLICATION SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF CIT(A) ORDER DT 30.01.2013 CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,39,073 MADE IN THE BLOCK ASST ORD ER, BASED ON THE SEIZED TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2001 FOUND IN SEARCH ACTION ON 27.06.2002 AT THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS PREMISES. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SUBJECT AMOUNT WAS IN RESPECT OF Y.E. 31.3.2000 AND INCLUDED ADDITION OF RS.16,20,67 4 BASED ON SEIZED DOCUMENT REFLECTING PROFIT ON SALE OF PREMIS ES IN Y.E .. 31.03.2000 AT PAGE NO 122B BUNDLE NO. A-9 OF PARTY NO A-12 WHICH WAS HELD BY CIT(A) IN APPELLATE ORDER DT 30.0 1.2013 AS NOT IN FACT MADE AND WAS ONLY A CALCULATION. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.3,39,073 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTUAL EXPLANATION OF DOC UMENTS ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. T HE APPELLANT PLEADS THAT THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 339073 MADE I N THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DT 30.01.2013 OUGHT TO BE DELETED. 4 . THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 3 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. 1. TH E H O N . C I T ( A ) ERRED I N CONFIRM I NG T HE ADDITION OF RS . 339073 MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 01-02 BY T HE A O BASED ON T RIA L BALANCE AS ON 3 1 . 03 . 200 1 BE I NG SEIZED DOCUMEN T A T PG. NO . 1 2 1 BUNDLE NO A-9 PA RT Y A- 1 2 . FOUND IN SEARCH ACTION ON 27 . 06 . 2002 . 2. T HE APPELLANT PLEADS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS . 3,39 , 073 PERTAINED TO YE 31.03.2000 AND A R OSE OUT OF TENTAT I VE ACCOUNTS BASED ON PROJECTED SALE OF PROPERTY FOR CO NSIDERATION OF RS . 26 , 40 , 000 JOTTED I N SEIZED DOCUMENT NO 122B BUNDLE NO A-9 PARTY A-12 . 3 . THE HON CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE FIGURE OF RS.3,39,073 IN THE TRIAL BALANCE WAS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE ESTIMATED PROFIT OF RS . 16,26 , 074 FROM THE PROJECTED SALE OF PROPERTY FOR RS.26 , 40 , 000 WHICH WAS HELD BY CIT(A) AS NOT A REAL TRANSACTION AND THAT NO REAL INCOME WAS EARNED FROM THE SALE. 4 . THE AO AND HON CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT T HE PROFIT FIGURE OF RS . 3 , 39 , 073 DID NOT APPEAR IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ACTION ON 27 . 06 . 02 . 5 . THE APPELLANT PLEADS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.3 , 39 , 073 MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT J USTIFIED . 5. THE APPEAL IN ITA.NO.2658/PUN/2016 WAS FILED AFTER DELAY OF 1305 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE. THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 26.02.2013 AND THE APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 27.04.2013. HO WEVER, THE SAID APPEAL WAS FILED ON 23.11.2016 I.E., AFTER DELAY OF 1305 DAYS / 1364 DAYS AS MENTIONED IN THE CONDONATION PETITION. TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAD APPLIED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DECIDED VIDE ORDER DT.17.10.2014 WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE WAS REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THOUGHT IT FIT TO FILE AN APPEAL AG AINST THE ORIGINAL ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CO NFIRMED BY 4 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,39,073/-. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH READS AS UNDER : A F F I D A V I T I KISHORE SHETTY MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KUSH PROPERT IES & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. REGISTERED ADDRESS 122 STERLIN G CENTRE, 11 MOLEDINA ROAD, PUNE 411001 DO SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND AFFIRM AS UNDER : THAT THE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 31.10.1989 AND FILED ITS INCOME TAX RETURNS UPTO A Y 1999-2000 WITH THE ASST CIT CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE UNDER PAN AAACK8694D THE COMPANY CONTINUOUSLY SUFFERED LOSSES AND THE B OOK LOSSES AS ON 31.03.1999 WERE RS.11,68,960 AND THE LOSSES U NDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WERE RS.16,45,125/-. THAT ON 27.06.2002 FOLLOWING SEARCH ACTION UNDER SE CTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE PREMISES OF THE COM PANY AND ITS DIRECTORS, THE COMPANY FILED BLOCK RETURN ON 15 .07.2004 DECLARING NIL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR AY 1997-98 TO AY 2003-04 (UPTO 27.06.2002). THE AO I.E. DEPUTY CIT CENTRAL 2(1), PUNE VIDE BLOC K ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 21.07.2004 ASSESSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.59,55,928. THE COMPANY CONTESTED THE ASSESSMENT IN APPEAL BEFO RE CIT(A), CENTRAL WHO BY ORDER DT 31.01.2013 GRANTED RELIEF D ELETING FIVE ADDITIONS AND SUSTAINING ONE ADDITION OF RS. 3,39,0 73 MADE BY THE AO IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THE RELIEF GRANTED TO T HE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ADDITION OF RS.3,39,073 REPRESENTED A CONSEQUEN TIAL ADDITION WHICH AROSE FROM A PROJECTED PROFIT OF RS. 16,20,674 ARISING OUT OF A PROPOSED SALE OF PROPERTY FOR RS.2 6,40,000. THE CIT(A) IN GROUND NO 5 OF THE SAID APPEAL IN THE APP ELLATE ORDER HAS HELD THAT THE SALE TRANSACTION IS NOT A REAL TR ANSACTION RESULTING IN ANY INCOME. AS LEGALLY ADVISED, THE COMPANY PREFERRED AN APPLIC ATION U/S 154 SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER POINTING OUT THE AFORESAID FACTS. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT (A) RESULTING IN THE ADDITION OF RS.3,39,073 BEING CONTESTED IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT 'A' BENCH, PUNE IN ITA NO. 2073/PN/2014. IN THE COURSE OF PREPARATION FOR HEARING OF THE APP EAL BEFORE THE ITAT WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE PURSUED OUR GRIEVANCE ABO UT THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,39,073 BEFORE A WRONG FORUM WHERE BY THE 5 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 A ND NOT AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.3,39,073 ON MERITS. THE COMPANY IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,39,073 AND HAS F ILED AN APPEAL MEMO IN FORM 36 AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION ON MERITS IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL. I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE A ND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE STATES THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SHOULD BE COND ONED AND THE MATTER BE HEARD BOTH ON MERITS AND AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAD STRONGLY OPPOSED T HE CONDONATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E RECORD FOR THE LIMITED ISSUE OF DECIDING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS A GOOD CA SE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY ABOUT 130 5 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONDONATION APPLICATION MENTIONS THAT THE DELAY IS OF 1364 DAYS WHEREAS THE REGISTRY HAS NOTIFIED THE DEL AY TO BE 1305 DAYS. WHATEVER BE THE PERIOD OF DELAY, THE SAID ISSU E IS TO BE SEEN KEEPING IN MIND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE TWO ADD ITIONS I.E., OF RS.3,39,073/- AND RS.16,20,674/-, AGAINST WHICH RECTIFICATION APPLICATION WAS FILED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER PASSED UND ER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.16,20,674/- BUT RETAINED THE ADD ITION OF RS.3,39,073/-. THE ORDER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE 6 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. ACT WAS PASSED ON 17.10.2014 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED AN A PPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ON 19.11.2014. IN OTHER WORDS, TH E ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER - 2014 / NOVEMBER 2014 WAS AWARE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.3,39,073/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME, WHILE IT WAS FILING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DISMISSAL OF ITS RECTIFICATION PLEA UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,39,073/- O N 22.11.2016. THE ASSESSEE IS DUTY BOUND TO EXPLAIN THE RE ASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE. 8. WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT THAT TILL THE PENDENCY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION UNDER SECT ION 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT SEEK THE ALTERNATE REMEDY OF FILING AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.3,39,073/-, WHICH WA S CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWE VER ONCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD DISPOSED OF THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDED THE SAME AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE, THE COURSE OF ACTION FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED IMMEDIATELY. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FILES THE APPEAL AS LATE AS ON 22.11.2016, WHEREAS THE ORDER OF CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 17.10.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY BE TWEEN OCTOBER - 2014 TO NOVEMBER 2016. UNDOUBTEDLY A PR AGMATIC VIEW 7 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. HAS TO BE TAKEN WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS RELATING TO CO NDONATION OF DELAY, BUT THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE DISCHARGING HIS ONUS, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. 9. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION V/S. MST. KATIJI & ORS REPORTED IN 167 ITR 0471 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 3. THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO CONDO NE DELAY BY ENACTING S.5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OF 1963 IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PARTIES BY DISP OSING OF MATTERS ON MERITS. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAU SE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVE S THE ENDS OF JUSTICE- THAT BEING THE LIFE- PURPOSE OF TH E EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS. 10. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID CASE WAS DECID ING ISSUE OF DELAY OF 4 DAYS BY THE STATE , IN FILING APPEAL LATE AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LIBERAL APPROACH SHOULD BE ADOPTED WH ILE CONDONING THE DELAY. HOWEVER, THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATIONAL COMMON SENSE AND PRAGMATIC MANNER. 11. IN ANOTHER DECISION, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN VED ABAI ALIAS VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL V/S. SHANTARAM BABURA O PATIL REPORTED IN 253 ITR 798 (SC) WHILE CONDONING THE DELAY OF SEVEN DAYS ON GROUND OF ILLNESS, IT WAS HELD THAT A DISTINCTION MUS T BE MADE WHERE DELAY IS INORDINATE AND A CASE WHERE THE DELA Y IS OF FEW DAYS AND WHERE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL OF CONDONATION OF DELAY ONLY SEVEN DAYS ON GENUINE GROUND OF ILLNESS, THE SAME SHOULD B E CONDONED. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FURTHER HELD AS UNDER : 8 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. IN EXERCISING DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LI MITATION ACT, THE COURTS SHOULD ADOPT PRAGMATIC APPROACH. A DISTI NCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS INORDINAT E AND A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS OF FEW DAYS. WHEREAS IN THE FORMER CASE THE CONSIDERATION OF PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER SIDE WI LL BE RELEVANT FACTOR SO THE CASE CALLS FOR A MORE CAUTIONS APPROA CH BUT IN THE LATTER CASE NO SUCH CONSIDERATION MAY ARISE AND SUC H A CASE DESERVES A LIBERAL APPROACH. NO HARD AND FAST RULE CAN BE LAID DOWN IN THIS REGARD. THE COURT HAS TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN CONS TRUING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE PRINCIPLE OF ADV ANCING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE. 12. IN ANOTHER DECISION, HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN STATE O F HARYANA V/S. CHANDRA MANI IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4118 & 4119 OF 1996, HAD ALSO CONDONED THE DELAY OF 109 DAYS IN FILING APP EAL BY THE STATE ON THE GROUND THAT STATE IS IMPERSONAL MACHINER Y WORKING THROUGH ITS OFFICERS OR SERVANTS. 13. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA VS. UJAGAR SINGH & ORS IN CIV IL APPEAL NOS. 2395 OF 2008 HAD CONSIDERED THE CASE OF DELAY OF 90 DAYS AND HAD HELD THAT IN CASE WHERE THE DELAY WAS NOT HUGE, TH E SAME COULD HAVE BEEN CONDONED WITHOUT PUTTING THE RESPONDENT TO HARM OR PREJUDICES. APPLYING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE, WE DISMISS THE CONDONAT ION APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 IS DISMISSED ON PRELIMINA RY ISSUE ITSELF. 14. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT CERTA IN ADDITIONS 9 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ONE ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF SALE OF PROPERTY AT RS.16,20,674/- WHICH WAS MADE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2000 01, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER PASSED UN DER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER POINTED THAT ANOTHER ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,39,073/- WHICH WAS ALSO ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND. HE STRESSED THAT THE SAID ADDITION RELATED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 01 AND ONCE NO ADDITION IS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RS.16,20,674/-, THE OTHER ADDITION ALSO MERITS TO BE DELETED. 15. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REV ENUE ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT THAT THE TWO ADDITIONS REFER RED TO BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SEPARATE I.E., ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT DOCUME NTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION OF RS.16,20,674/ - WAS MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 01 AND RS.3,39,073/- WA S MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 02. HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND HENCE CANNOT BE PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE DISPUTE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 154 OF 10 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. THE ACT. THE SAID SECTION PRESCRIBES THAT WHEN THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, THE SAME MAY BE RECTIFIED, WHEN IT IS EITHER POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE OR COMES TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED. IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS, THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AGAINST TH E ADDITIONS I.E., RS.16,20,674/- AND RS.3,39,073/-. THE FIRST ADDITIO N OF RS.16,20,674/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF PAGE NO.122B OF BUNDLE NO.A-9 OF PARTY NO.A-12 RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01. THE SAID ADDITION WAS DELETE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER PASSED UN DER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE SECOND ADDITION WHICH WAS M ADE ON THE BASIS OF PAGE 110 TO 121 OF BUNDLE A-9 OF PARTY NO.A-12 R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 02, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ONLY ON THE B ASIS OF TRIAL BALANCE NET PROFIT WAS WORKED OUT ON RS.3,39,073/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SAID NET PROFIT IS SUBSUMED IN THE PROFIT OF RS.16,20,674/- AND ONCE THE SAME IS DELETED THEN NO OTHE R ADDITION IS TO BE MADE. 17. THE SECOND PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT TH E PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENT ITSELF WOULD REFLECT THAT IT IS PART OF TRIAL BALA NCE AND THE SAID FIGURE IS SHOWN AS THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.0 4.2000. IT WAS ALSO STRESSED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE SAID ADDITION 11 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH, REPEATE D REQUESTS WERE MADE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. 18. THE LIMITED ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS A GAINST THE ORDER OF RECTIFICATION PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE SCOPE OF RECT IFICATION IS LIMITED TO CORRECT ANY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT POINT OUT THE SAID APPARENT MISTAKE WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 15 4 OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, SINCE THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION UN DER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IS VERY LIMITED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 19. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE; ! DATED : 17 TH MARCH, 2017. YAMINI 12 ITA NO.2073/PUN/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04 & ITA NO.2658/PUN/2016 BLOCK PERIOD : 1997-98 TO 2003-04. / 0 1234 542 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . 4. 5. 6. CIT-CENTRAL, PUNE. CIT (A) 12, PUNE. #$% &&'(, * '(, / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; %+, - / GUARD FILE. /6 / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // . /012 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, * '( , / ITAT, PUNE.