Case Law Details
CA Prarthana Jalan
In the case of Cardinal Drugs Pvt Ltd.Hon’ble ITAT has observed that there was no scope for the A.O. to have resorted to the provision of Section 154 of the Act for the purpose of enhancing the income of the assessee.by stating as under:-
The A.O. on long drawn process of reasoning should not have passed the order under Section154 of the Act. The issue raised by the A.O. in proceeding under Section 154 of the Act is highly debatable which requires the issue to be reconsidered by the A.O.about applicability of the provision of Section 115JB of the Act which was notraised by the A.O. in assessment or appellate proceedings. Therefore, A.O. has no power to review his entire assessment order and to make certain additions which are not part of the record. The assessee has declared all particulars regarding assessment and assessment to be framed under Section 115JB of the Act. When the A.O. has consciously taken the view to frame a regular assessment and made certain additions, which have been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the A.O. is not empowered to take a contrary view to review the entire assessment order already framed. It is against the spirit of provision of Section 154 of the Act.
Author Bio
‘mistake apparent from records’ is rectifiable u/s 154 of the IT Act.
Section 154 of the Income Tax Act,1961 has got limited scope to the A.O. as well as to the assessee to go for a rectification in the assessment order.If it within the limitation period notice U/s.148 should have been issued, where it is clear that the income has escaped the assessment.Hence revising the order u/s.154 amounts to review of it’s own order, which he is not empowered under the statute.