THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR V. SH. BALWINDER SINGH KOHLI, JALANDHAR

MA 67/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jalandhar, against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, which had allowed the appeals of Shri Darshan Pal Singh Garewal and Shri Balwinder Singh Kohli. The Tribunal's earlier decision dated 21.06.2023 had quashed the assessment orders on the grounds that the prior approval under Section 153D of the Income-tax Act was granted mechanically without application of mind, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio. The Revenue's MAs sought to recall and rectify this decision, arguing that the Tribunal had not considered certain precedents and had misapplied the law. However, the Tribunal found that the MAs were not maintainable as they attempted to review the decision rather than rectify a mistake apparent from the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791683 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs Siddarth Gupt, PCIT vs Subodh Agarwal, ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co., Sh. Ravi Narula Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Amritsar
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHRAY SARNA; HOLDING
• Assessee Lawyers: CHARAN DASS
• Keywords: Period of limitation; TDS; Search and seizure; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, ‘DB’: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.65/ASR/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.266/ASR/2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jalandhar Vs Shri Darshan Pal Singh Garewal, C/-Shri Dinesh Sarna (Advocate), Model Town Road, Jalandhar PAN-AISPG9530B Appellant Respondent MA No.67/ASR/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.87/ASR/2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jalandhar Vs Shri Balwinder Singh Kohli, 10-Jyoti Nagar, Near Income Tax Colony, Jalandhar PAN-ADTPS2409R Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Ashray Sarna, CA Date of Hearing 19.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, By way of these two Miscellaneous Applications, the Revenue under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has requested for recalling the order both dated 21.06.2023 of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.65 and 67/ASR/2024 87 & 266/Asr/2017 and rectifying it as per the prayer made in the said Miscellaneous Application (M.A.). Since common facts are there, these two M.As. are disposed by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. We first take up M.A. No. 65/Asr/2024. The Department has filed this Miscellaneous Application on 09.04.2024 against the order dated 21.06.2023 of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 87 and 266/Asr/2017. Thus, it has been filed beyond the period of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Tribunal has been passed. As per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, the appellate tribunal may at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed may rectify it if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Miscellaneous Application is filed beyond the prescribed limit. In this regard, the Department in Para no.10 of its Miscellaneous Application submitted as under:- “10. That the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar was received in the office of Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana and the limitation period in this case falls on 01.03.2024 as decided by various High Courts which was incorporated by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.A. No. 63/Chny/2020 (arising out of ITA No. 1203/Chny/2019) dated 30.06.2022 in the case of DCIT, Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. M/s K.P.R. Mills Ltds., Combatore.” 2.1 In the above para the date of receipt of the order dated 21.06.2023 of Tribunal in the office of the PCIT (Central) Ludhiana was not mentioned and therefore, a clarification hearing was fixed on 19.09.2025, wherein the Sr. DR informed that the said order was received in the office of PCIT (Central) Ludhiana on 11.10.2023 and the M.A. was filed by the assessee on 09.04.2024, which was within 6 months from Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.65 and 67/ASR/2024 the end of the receipt of the order of the Tribunal and therefore, deserves to be admitted on the ground that the period of six month should be calculated from the end of the month from the date of receipt of the order and not from the end of the month of the date of passing of the said order. In this regard, the Sr. DR filed a written submission relying upon various case laws. 2.2 On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the limitation period of six months should be calculated from the end of month in which the order was passed. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and considered their respective submissions. However, this issue has been kept open in this case, in view of the discussion later in this order that M.A. of the Department is not maintainable. 3. In this regard, the list of dates relating to this case are as under:- Sr. No. Dates Particulars 1 05.12.2012 A search and seizure operation was conducted at the premises of the assessee 2 27.03.2015 The order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act was passed at the income of Rs.34,81,200/- against the returned income of Rs.6,36,560/- by making the addition of Rs.27,72,800/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and addition of Rs.71840/- 3 10.04.2019 The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana upheld the addition 4 21.06.2023 Aggrieved with order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee file an appeal before the Tribunal, which by a combined order dated 21.06.2023 in ITA No.87/Asr/2017 and ITA No.266/Asr/2017 allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the prior approval of the Additional CIT u/s 153D of the Act before the passing the assessment order, in pursuant to a search operation in this case was mechanical which rendered the assessment order void ab initio and consequently, the impugned order was held to be infirm, illegal and bad in law and was quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.65 and 67/ASR/2024 3.1. The Tribunal Amritsar Bench while passing the order on 21.06.2023 in this case discussed about the various judicial pronouncement as detailed below to hold their above view. 1. PCIT vs Siddarth Gupt[2023] 147 taxmann.com 305 (All.) 2. PCIT vs Subodh Agarwal [2023] 149 taxmann.com 373 (All.) 3. ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the Revenue in this Miscellaneous Application has referred to the order dated 11.08.2022 of the Co-ordinate Bench of Amritsar, in ITA No. 611 to 615 & 650/Asr/2018 in the case of Sh. Ravi Narula Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Amritsar, which adjudicated the grounds relating to the mechanical approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the favour of Revenue by holding that: \"From the factual aspect, the approval was made with a list of assessee. The process of approval is a continuous process which was going by the AO with his senior officers. After a detailed discussion this approval was made. The approval was done on 21/03/2016 & assessment order was passed on 22/03/2016. We find no lacuna in the approval of the revenue authorities. Further in section 153D specifically mention about only for the approval. So, the grounds related to section 153D for mechanically approval is dismissed. We are dismissing the additional ground of the assessee. 5.7. In the result, the additional ground related mechanical approval us 153D is dismissed.\" 4.1. On the basis of above order and further submissions that the order of the Assessing Officer is discussed with range head from time to time and therefore the approval cannot be considered as mechanical as held by the Tribunal in this case. In this regard, the Revenue submits about the apparent mistake in the said order was that the Tribunal Amritsar has not followed the decision of Co-Ordinate Bench in the Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.65 and 67/ASR/2024 case of Shri Ravi Narula vs DCIT dated 11.08.2022 and requested that the Tribunal to rectify its order in the present case, taking into account the intricate and ongoing discussions that characterize the assessment process and it was vital to recognize that the role of the Range Head is pivotal in achieving fair and legally sound assessments, and requested to recall its order dated 21.06.2023 on the ground that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal are factually incorrect and the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act may kindly be restored. 4.2. The ld. AR supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the mistake pointed out by the Revenue was not a mistake apparent from record and it will amount to review of its own order, which was not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act, and prayed that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Tribunal has given its findings and reasonings for holding that the approval given by the Additional CIT u/s 153D of the Act was mechanical and without application of mind and hence the said assessment order was not a valid assessment order. The relevant findings of the Tribunal in para 10 and 11 of its order is reproduced as below. “10. In the instant cases, the AO has submitted the draft assessment order on 20/03/2015 before the Approving Authority who had approved on same day i.e. 20/03/2015. In our view, it was humanly impossible to peruse records of all 5 cases in one day to apply independent mind to appraise material records. Further, the approving authority has not mentioned any indication that the approving authority has examined the draft orders and finds that it meets the requirement of the law. Even the approving authority has not written or repeated the words of the statute, in granting the approval u/s 153D of the Act. We are therefore of the considered Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No.65 and 67/ASR/2024 view that mere endorsing a list of cases by signature with \"rubber stamping\" of the letter without mentioning even the words like 'seen' or 'approved' will not satisfy the requirement of the law for approval or sanction u/s 153D of the Act. Therefore, we hold that in the present case, the prior approval of the Additional CIT before passing the order of assessment in pursuant to a search operation being a mandatory requirement of section 153D of the Act was not as per law because such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. Without application of mind by the Additional CIT which resulted in vitiating the assessment orders themselves. 11. In the above view, we hold that mandatory approval was being granted mechanically without application of mind by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central- Range, Jalandhar, and therefore, this mechanical exercise of power has vitiated entire assessment proceedings and consequently, the said assessment orders are rendered void ab initio. Consequently, the impugned order is held to be infirm, illegal and bad in law and same is as such quashed.” 6. As discussed above, in arriving the above findings the Tribunal had discussed two case laws of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and another decision of Hon’ble Orissa High Court as per the citations referred in para 3.1 of this order. The Department is relying upon the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Ravi Narula vs. DCIT to submit that the Tribunal while passing the order dated 21.06.2023 in this case by not following the said order has committed a mistake apparent from record. However, the facts as noted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ravi Narula vs. DCIT and the facts in the present case regarding the approval and the reasoning given by the Tribunal in both the cases one upholding the approval granted in one case and in the other holding it mechanical and illegal, are different inasmuch as in the case of Ravi Narula vs. DCIT, on perusal of the approval letter dated 21.03.2016 (placed at pg. no. 10 of the order) the letter seeking approval of the draft assessment orders by the AO was forwarded vide letter Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA No.65 and 67/ASR/2024 dated 17.03.2016, whereas in the present case, both the letter seeking approval of the assessment order forwarded by the AO and the approval letter of the Addl. CIT are dated 20.03.2015. Further, the finding in the present based on its own reasoning (as discussed in para no. 10 & 11 and as reproduced in para no. 5 of this order) cannot amount to a mistake apparent from record which could be rectified within this scope of section 254(2) of the Act, on the ground that it had not followed the order of its own Bench in the case of Ravi Narula vs. DCIT as submitted by the Department. 6.2 The scope of section 254(2) of the Act has been examined by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, vide order dated 06.11.1992 passed in Commissioner of Income Tax (IT- 4) V M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited, reported in [1993] 203 ITR, wherein Hon'ble High Court has held as under: \"Under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal may, \"with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record\", amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) within the time prescribed therein. It is an accepted position that the Appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the pro visions of the Act. The only power which the Tribunal possesses is to rectify any mistake in its own order which is apparent from the record. This is merely a power of amending its order. The power of rectification under section 254(2) can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. The Tribunal cannot, in the exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion\" (emphasis supplied by us) 6.3 Hon'ble Supreme court, vide order dated 03.12.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7110 of 2021, Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) V M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited, vide para 3.2 and 6 has held as under: Printed from counselvise.com 8 MA No.65 and 67/ASR/2024 \"3.2 Having gone through both the orders passed by the ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. While allowing the application under Section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013, it appears that the ITAT has re-heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record only. Therefore, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. While considering the application under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may. pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case.\" 6.4 In view of aforesaid legal and factual position, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is, thus, not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly. 7. The facts and issue regarding the approval u/s 153D of the Act in MA No. 67/Asr/2024 are exactly identical to facts and issue in MA No. 65/Asr/2024. Therefore, our finding given in MA No. 65/Asr/2024 shall be applicable to the case in MA No. 67/Asr/2024 in mutatis mutandis and accordingly the MA No.67/Asr/2024 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 9 MA No.65 and 67/ASR/2024 8. In the result, both the Miscellaneous Applications of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced as per Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 12th December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/-Sd/- Sd/- [UDAYAN DAS GUPTA] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 12.12.2025. Shekhar/ Pooja Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Amritsar Printed from counselvise.com 10 MA No.65 and 67/ASR/2024 Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 11.12.2025 Sr.PS/PS 2. Draft placed before author 12.12.2025 Sr.PS/PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 9. Date on which file goes to the AR 10. Date of dispatch of Order Printed from counselvise.com "