IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.52 & 53/PAN./2024 ALONG WITH Stay Application Nos.9 & 10/PAN./2024 Assessment Years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 Shri Shivabodharang Urban Cooperative Credit Society Limited, A/P Mudalagi (Tal-Mudalagi); Dist. Belagavi. Karnataka. PAN AAAAS6801L PIN – 591 312 vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, CTS No.2982, 2 nd Floor, Bafna Towers, Bafna Chowk, GOKAK – 591 307. Karnataka. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Saideep B Gadadi For Revenue : Shri N. Shrikanth Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment years 2020-2021 & 2021-2022, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Din and Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060542773(1); and 1059424696(1) dated 06.02.2024 and 05.01.2024, respectively, in proceedings u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2 ITA.Nos.52, 53 & 54/PAN./2024 & SA.Nos.9, 10 & 11/PAN./2024 2. We advert to the assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.52/PAN./2024. It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the Assessing Officer had framed his sec.143(3) r.w.s.144B assessment in assessee’s case declining sec.80P deduction of Rs.3,77,60,800/-. The assessee thereafter chose to file sec.154 rectification seeking the very deduction u/sec.80P of the Act. A perusal of the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion in his sec.154 rectification dated 30.03.2023 reveals that he re- computed the very disallowance on “netting” basis to the tune of Rs.1,78,08,819/-; as reduced by the proportionate expenses of Rs.1,40,92,425/-; coming to Rs.37,16,384/- only. The NFAC has admittedly confirmed the same in it’s impugned lower appellate discussion. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands against and in support of the impugned disallowance(s). Suffice to say, we see no reason to interfere with the learned lower authorities action for the precise reason that purpose of a sec.154 is to correct apparent mistakes only than carrying-out roving enquiries as held in T S Balram ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We accordingly reject the assessee’s instant “lead” appeal ITA.No.52/PAN./2024 for the very reason of maintainability of sec.154 rectification 3 ITA.Nos.52, 53 & 54/PAN./2024 & SA.Nos.9, 10 & 11/PAN./2024 proceedings. It’s corresponding stay application no.9/PAN./2024 has also follows the suit. 4. Same order to follow in assessee’s latter appeal ITA.No.53/PAN./2024 as well as in stay application S.A.no.10/PAN./2024 since raising the question of sec.154 rectification only in principle. 5. These assessee’s appeals I.T.A.No.52 and 53/ PAN./2024 with stay applications S.A.Nos.9 & 10/PAN./2024 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on19.06.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [RAMA KANTA PANDA] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 19 th June, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.