SURESH BABU CHALORAKANDY,BENGALURU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, 5(3)(5), BENGALURU

ITA 4/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Suresh Babu Chalorakandy against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, which confirmed an addition of \\u20b936,34,500 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2017-18, attributed to unexplained cash deposits in the bank. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not challenged the initial order confirming the addition but only the subsequent rectification order. The Tribunal held that the scope of the appeal against a rectification order is limited to apparent mistakes, and since the original order was not challenged, the appeal against the rectification order was not maintainable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360593 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: CHYTANYA V MUDRABETTU; C.A
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.04/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suresh Babu Chalorakandy, No.54, Shivamanyam, Someshwara Layout, MS Palya, Bengaluru -560 097. PAN – ADFPC 6359 J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5(3)(6), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Chytanya V Mudrabettu, C.A Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.05.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, New Delhi dated 12/06/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1065599748(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to ₹36,34,500 on account of cash deposits in the bank. ITA No.04/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 . 3. Before addressing on the issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal, it is pertinent to take note of the different dates when the orders were passed, which are detailed below: S. No. Particulars Date of the Order 1. Assessment order 25 December 2019 2. Appeal to the Ld. CIT-A 24 January 2020 3. Order of the learned CIT(A) 12 June 2024 4. Rectification application against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 12 June 2024 19 August 2024 5. Order by the learned CIT(A) on rectification application 9 September 2024 6. Rectification application against the rectified order of the learned CIT(A) 21 October 2024 7. Order of the learned CIT(A) on the second rectification application 8 November 2024 3. All the above stated details are arising from the statement of facts filed by the assessee along with the memorandum of appeal which were not disputed by the ld. DR of the Revenue. Further, on perusal of Form 36 filed by the assessee, it is observed that the order under challenge is dated 8 November 2024, which is an order passed by the learned CIT(A) under section 154 read with section 250 of the Income Tax Act. It is a known fact that the scope of dispute in the appeal against a rectification order is limited to the extent of apparent mistakes. 4. Furthermore, upon examining the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we note that the assessee has challenged the addition made by the AO, which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) vide order dated ITA No.04/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 . 12 June 2024. However, the said order dated 12 June 2024 has not been challenged by the assessee. Upon confronting the learned AR (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the assessee with this fact, he could not controvert the same. As such, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that if the assessee is aggrieved, he should have preferred an appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 12 June 2024. This, however, has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee against the rectification order of the learned CIT(A) dated 8-11-2024 is not maintainable. This position was also not disputed by the learned AR for the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that this appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. To avoid any ambiguity, we find it relevant to clarify that the remedy for the assessee is not available against the rectification order passed by the learned CIT(A) dated 8 November 2024, but rather against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) dated 12 June 2024. As such, the assessee is at liberty to file an appeal with appropriate contentions as per the provisions of law. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in court on 22nd day of May, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 22nd May, 2025 / vms / ITA No.04/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 . Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "