The Upper India Couper Paper Mills Co. Pvt .Ltd, Lucknow V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur

ITA 52/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 5223714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT NANDAN SHUKLA
• Keywords: Valuation report
• Section: 45(2); 143(3); 54; 263; 154; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 52/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 THE UPPER INDIA COUPER PAPER MILLS CO. PVT. LTD. MASJID BAGH, NISHATGANJ LUCKNOW V. DY. CIT RANGE VI LUCKNOW PAN: AA CCT7347N (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI. ROHIT NANDAN SHUKLA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 23 0 5 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT: 5 0 7 2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - A . BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY COURT BELOW SUFFERS FROM MATERIAL IRREGULARITY OF LAW AS WE LL AS OF FACTS. B . BECAUSE THE COURT BELOW FAIL TO POINT OUT THE DOCUMENT WHICH THE COURT BELOW EXAMINED HIMSELF AND ALSO FAIL TO APPRECIATE THAT TOTAL SALE VALUE OF LAND SOLD HAS BEEN ARRIVED BY APPLYING DIFFERENT RATES AS PER VALUATION REPORT ON RESIDENTIAL LAND AREA OF 9,33,518.33 SQ.FT. AND COMMERCIAL LAND AREA OF 2,70,920 SQ.FT., HENCE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LAND VALUE SHALL GIVE MISLEADING RESULT HENCE THE MISTAKES WAS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD AND VALUE OF LAND SOLD U/S 45(2) SHALL BE RS. 1,022,502, 097.80. C . BECAUSE OUT OF TOTAL LAND AREA OF 1864023 SQ.FT., 64.62% PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 2 - : [FOUNDING OF THE ACTUAL FIGURE 64.61499%] OF IT, THAT IS 1204438.33 SQ. FT. OF LAND AREA WAS SOLD AND CORRESPONDING VALUE AS ON 01.04.2003 AS PER VALURE'S REPORT U/S 45(2) SHALL BE RS.1, 022,502,097.80. D . B ECAUSE THE COURT FAIL TO APPRECIATE THAT OUT OF TOTAL LAND AREA OF 1864023 SQ.FT., ONLY 1204438.33 SQ. FT. OF LAND AREA WAS SOLD IN THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND THE SAID SOLD AREA WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2010 PASSE D U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09. E . BECAUSE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FAIL TO APPRECIATE THAT THE MISTAKES WAS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD AND WAS A SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL ERROR. F . BECAUSE THE LD. 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT EXAMINING THE MISTAKE HIMSELF WR ONGLY ASSUMED THAT THE MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD IS A DEBATABLE POINT. G . BECAUSE THE HON'BLE ITAT, LUCKNOW VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 07.08.2012 CANCELLED THE ORDER OF CIT - II, LUCKNOW PASSED U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 SOLELY ON THE LEGAL POINT AND DID NOT CONSIDERED THE ARITHMETICAL M ISTAKE IN THE CALCULATION, WHICH WAS NOT THE ISSUE. H . BECAUSE THE COURT BELOW DESPITE THE LACK OF JURISDICTION, ILLEGALLY JUMPED TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2011 PASSED BY EARLIER CIT - APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND DEVIATED FROM THE MAIN ISSUE. I . BECAUSE THE COURT BELOW FAIL TO APPRECIATE THAT PRINCIPLE OF MERGER SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE WITH THE EARLIER ORDER DATED 16.03.2011 PASSED BY CIT - APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 AS THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DISMISSED ON MERIT AN D THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE MENTIONED IN THE ORDER ITSELF. PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 3 - : J . BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER IS NOT A DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL OR UNLIMITED APPLICATION. IT WILL DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF JURISDICTION EXERCISED BY THE SUPERIOR FORUM AND THE CONTENT OR SUBJEC T - MATTER OF CHALLENGE LAID OR CAPABLE OF BEING LAID SHALL BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE APPLICABILITY OF MERGER. 2 . THOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED, BUT THEY ALL RELATE TO RECTIFICATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS ON SALE OF LAND, IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER WHILE DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . THE FACTS IN BRIEF BORNE OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THAT ORIGINALLY ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT' ) ON 23.12.2009 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.23,84,60,920/ - . FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE ACT WAS NOT CHARGED. HE ACCORDINGLY ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 5 4 OF THE ACT AND RECTIFIED THE ORDER. IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUATION OF THE APPROVED / REGISTERED VALUER AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.2009 AND ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.23,84,60,920/ - AND LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS AT RS.79 ,25,89,300/ - . THEREAFTER , AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS ALLEGEDLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 26.4.2010 BEFORE THE ACIT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ALSO CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT LATER ON APPEAL WAS WITHDRAWN ON T HE GROUND THAT APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DATED 26.4.2010 WAS NOT TRACEABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED A FRESH APPLICATIO N UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE APPLICATION DATED 5.10.2011 STATING THEREIN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN COMPUTING THE CAPITAL LOSS. HE HAS TAKEN THE SALE VALUE OF LAND UNDER SECTION 45(2) OF T HE ACT CONVERTED INTO STOCK - IN - PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 4 - : TRADE AS ON 1.4.2003 AT RS.78,54,72,268/ - BEING 64.62% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF LAND AS PER VALUERS REPORT AT RS.1,21,55,25,020/ - , WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SALE VALUE OF LAND AT RS.1,02,25,02,097.80 B EING 64.62% OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA I.E. 1864023 SQ. FT. BY TAKING WRONG FIGURE, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS WAS INCREASED RESULTING INTO INCREASE IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND HE DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AFTER OBSERVING THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VERIFIED FROM RECORD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN CORRECT FIGURE. 4 . ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH HIM. 5 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US AND REITERATED ITS CONTENTIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF THE LAND WHICH WERE SOLD AND CAPITAL GAINS TO BE ACCRUED AS PER PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT HE DID NOT APPRECIATE THE SAME AND HAS TAKEN THE FIGURE OF RS.78,54,72,268/ - AS THE LAND VALUE CONVERTED INTO STOCK - IN - TRADE AS ON 1.4.2003 IN PLACE OF CORRECT FIGURE OF RS.1,02,25,02,097 .80. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT TOTAL LAND AT TWO PLACES WERE CONVERTED INTO STOCK - IN - TRADE AND THE LAND SITUATED AT MAIN NISHATGANJ ROAD AS WELL AS TAKING OFF FROM ASHOK MARG AFTER NISHATGANJ GOMTI BRIDGE TO GOMTI NAGAR SITUATED AT HASANGANJ PAR, NISHATGANJ, LUCKNOW INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PLOTS VALUED AT DIFFERENT RATES. AS PER VALUATION REPORT, THIS LAND WAS VALUED AT RS.1,02,25,02,097.80 AND SINCE THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR , THIS VALUE AS ON 1 .4.2003 SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED 64.62% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF RS.1,21,55,25,020/ - WHICH COMES TO RS.78,54,72,26 8/ - . PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 5 - : THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THESE FACTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT HE DID NOT RECTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APP LICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THESE FACTS. 6 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAN D, HAS CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSEES DECLARATION , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN NOTE THAT 64.62% OF THE LAND WAS SOLD DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, 64.62% OF THE TOTAL VALUE AS ON 1.4.2003 WAS ADOPTED AS LAND VALUE CONVERTED INTO STOCK - IN - TRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT TOTAL LAND SITUATED AT MAIN NISHATGANJ ROAD AS WELL AS TAKING OFF FROM ASHOK MARG AFTER NISHATGANJ GOMTI BRIDGE TO GOMTI NAGAR SITUATED AT HASANGANJ PAR, NISHATGANJ, LUCKNOW WAS SOLD DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. O RAL SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE TO SEEK RECTIFICATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 OF IS LIMITED, AS ONLY ARITHMETICAL ERROR APPARENT FROM THE ORDER CAN BE RECTIFIED. THE LD. D.R. HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ASSESSEE HAS NO T FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LAND SITUATED AT MAIN NISHATGANJ ROAD AS WELL AS TAKING OFF FROM ASHOK MARG AFTER NISHATGANJ GOMTI BRIDGE TO GOMTI NAGAR SITUATED AT HASANGANJ PAR, NISHATGANJ, LUCKNOW , OF WHICH VALUE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.1,02,25,02,097.80 AS ON 1.4.2003 WAS SOLD. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT 64.62% OF THE TOTAL LAND WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN THE LAND VALUE AS ON 1.4.2003 AT 64.62% OF THE TOTAL LAND VALUE AND COMPUTED IT AT RS.78,54,72,268/ - . THEREFORE, THERE PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 6 - : WAS NO ERROR APPA RENT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 . HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE CA PITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT SALE VALUE OF LAND UNDER SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT AT RS.78,54,72,268/ - BEING 64.62% OF THE TOTAL SALE VALUE OF LAND SOLD DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE VALUE OF TOTAL LAND AS PER VALUE RS REPORT WAS UNDISPUTEDLY AT RS.1,21,55,25,020/ - . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS CONTENDING THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR , IT HAS SOLD LAND (RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL) SITUATED AT MAIN NISHATGANJ ROAD AS WELL AS TAKING OFF FROM ASHOK MARG AFTER NISHATGANJ GOMT I BRIDGE TO GOMTI NAGAR SITUATED AT HASANGANJ PAR, NISHATGANJ, LUCKNOW, WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE VALUE OF LAND AT 64.62% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE LAND. FROM THE DETAILS OF LAND APPEARING AT PAGE 1 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL LAND WAS SITUATED AT TWO DIFFERENT PLACES WHICH WERE CONVERTED INTO STOCK - IN - TRADE ON 1.4.2003 , BUT IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT , CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS ON ITS TRANSFER WOULD BE COMPUTED IN THE YEAR IN WHIC H THE SAID LAND IS SOLD. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE DETAILS OF THE LAND AND ITS VALUE AS ON 1.4.2003 AS UNDER: - PROPERTY NO.I COMPANY'S LAND AREA UNDER METRE CITY (PAREKH NAGAR) AS PER SANCTIONED PLAN ON KHASRA NO. 53P, 54P ETC. SITUATED A T HASANGANJ PAR, NISHATGANJ, LUCKNOW LAND AREA(SQ.FT.) RATE VALUE RESIDENTIAL 643580.57 X285 183420462.40 COMMERCIAL 16004.10 X600 9602460.00 (I)TOTAL 659584.67 659584.67 193022922.40 193022922.40 PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 7 - : PROPERTY NO.II COMPAN Y'S LAND AREA ON MAIN NISHATGANJ ROAD AS WELL AS TAKING OFF FROM ASHOK MARG AFTER NISHAT GANJ GOMTI BRIDGE TO GOMTI NAGAR SITUATES AT HASANGANJ PAR, NISHATGANJ', LUCKNOW LAND AREA(SQ.FT) RATE VALUE RESIDENTIAL 933518.33 X660 616122097.80 COM MERCIAL 270920.00 X 1500 406380000.00 (II)TOTAL 1204438.33 1204438.33 1022502097.80 1022502097.80 TOTAL AREA (I) + (II) 1864023.00 TOTAL VALUE 1215525020.20 8 . FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS OF LAND, WE FIND THAT TOTAL LAND CONVERTED INTO STOCK - IN - TRADE WAS 1 864023 SQ. FT. WORTH RS.1,21,55,25,020.20 AND THERE WAS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE VALUATION OF LAND AS ON 1.4.2003. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS SOLD LAND MARKED AS PROPERTY NO.II AND THE VALUE OF THIS LAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AS RS.1,02,25,02,097.80, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE VALUE OF LAND AS RS.78,54,72,268/ - AT 64.62% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE LAND. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT IT HAS SOLD THE LAND MARKED AS PROPERTY NO.II BUT NO E VIDENCE IS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US TO ESTABLISH THESE FACTS. EVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS , ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THIS EFFECT. I T WAS, HOWEVER, CONTENDED THAT 64.62% OF THE TOTAL LAND WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE . ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 23.12.2009 AND RECTIFICATION APPLICATION POINTING OUT THE MISTAKE WAS FILED IN THE YEAR 2011. 9 . WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION AND STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALSO BEFORE US AND WE FIND THAT EVEN IN THE ENTIRE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION, IT HAS PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 8 - : NOT BEEN STATED AS TO WHICH LAND WAS SOLD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE L ANDS ARE SITUATED AT TWO PLACES WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE FOREGOING PARAS AS PROPERTY NO.I AND PROPERTY NO .II AND BOTH THE LANDS COMPRISE OF RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL LANDS. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO STATE SPECIFICALLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS TO WHICH PART OF LAND WAS SOLD, SO THAT CAPITAL GAIN OR LOSS CAN BE COMPUTED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT. NOTHING HAS BEEN BORNE OUT FROM RECORD IN THIS REGARD. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS DISCERNIBLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT HAS SOLD 64.62% OF THE TOTAL LAND. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A PARTICULAR LAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ONLY WORK OUT THE VALUE OF LAND AS 64.62% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE LAND. EVEN IN THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION, IT HAS NOT BEEN STATED, AS TO WHICH LAND WAS SOLD. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD LAND AS PROPERTY NO.II, IT SHOULD HAVE FILED SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, BUT NOTHING IS PLACED EITHER BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LAND AT PROPERTY NO.II WAS SOLD REQUIRES A PROPER VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SEC TION 154 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO TAKEN COGNIZANCE THAT 64.62% OF THE TOTAL LAND WAS SOLD, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ADOPTED THE VALUE OF 64.62% OF THE TOTAL LAND VALUE, WHICH WAS C ALCULA TED TO BE AT RS.78,54,72,268/ - . EVEN BEFORE US, NOTHING IS PLACED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SOLD LAND WAS LAND AT PROPERTY NO.II. 10 . THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS EXAMINED REPEATEDLY BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD CAN BE RECTIFIED. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRE D TO MAKE DETAILED ENQUIRY/INVESTIGATION TO APPRECIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, RECTIFICATION IS NOT POSSIBLE. PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 9 - : 11 . IN THE CASE OF VENKATACHALAM (M.K.), ITO V. BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , 34 ITR 143, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT AN OBVIOUS MISTAKE OF LAW CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1922. 12 . IN THE CASE OF BALARAM (T.S.), ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS , 82 ITR 15, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS REITERATED THE LEGAL POSITION B Y OBSERVING THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS AND A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POI NT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 13 . IN THE CASE OF SUBBARAJA MUDALIAR (M.) V. CIT, 33 ITR 228, IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DOES NOT COVER ANY MISTAKE WHICH MAY BE DISCOVERED BY A COMPLICATED PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION, AR GUMENT OR PROOF. MISTAKE SHOULD BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH MAY BE DISCOVERED BY A PROCESS OF ELUCIDATION, ARGUMENT OR DEBATE. THE EXPRESSION 'APPARENT FROM THE RECORD' SHOULD NOT BE EQUATED WITH THE EXPRESSION 'APP ARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ' AS HELD IN THE CASE OF ARVIND N. MAFATLAL V. INCOME - TAX OFFICER , 32 ITR 350. 14 . AGAIN IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL RAYON CORPORATION LTD. V. BAHMANI (G.R.), INCOME TAX OFFICER, 56 ITR 114, IT WAS HELD THAT I T MAY BE A MISTAKE OF FACT AS WEL L AS A MISTAKE OF LAW. A MISTAKE BECOMES A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WHEN IT IS A GLARING, O BVIOUS OR SELF - EVIDENT MISTAKE AND A MISTAKE WHICH HAS TO BE DISCOVERED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING OR EXAMINING ARGUMENTS ON POINTS WHERE THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A MISTAKE OR ERROR WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 10 - : 15 . IT WAS FURTHER HELD IN THE CASE OF NAGAPPA CHETTIAR (N.V.N.) V. INCOME - TAX OFFICER , 34 ITR 583 THAT SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WOULD NOT COVER A CASE IN ORD ER TO ASCERTAIN WH E RE THERE IS A MISTAKE WHICH NEED A PROLONGED INVESTIGATION, PARTICULARLY AN INVESTIGATION OF A CONTROVERSIAL NATURE WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. 16 . T URNING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US TO ESTABLISH THAT SOLD LAND WAS LAND AT PROPERTY NO.II, OF WHICH VALUE WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.1,02,25,02,097.80 AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE ADOPTED IN PLACE OF RS.78,54,72,268/ - , AS THE LAND VALUE C ONVERTED INTO STOCK - IN - TRADE AS ON 1.4.2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS. IF THE ASSESSEE WANTS SOME RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT ARITHMETICAL ERROR OCCURRED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY FURNISHING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM. BUT NOTHING WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS. SIMPLY ORAL ASSERTIONS WERE MADE, WHICH ARE NOT SUFFICIENT, ACCORDING TO US, FOR MAKING RECTIFICATION IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. WE ACCORDINGLY FIND NO MERIT IN THIS APPEAL AND HENCE WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 17 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.7.2014. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 TH JULY, 2014 JJ: 2706 - 10 07 PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 11 - : COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ )