Suresh Babu Chalorakandy Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Failure to challenge original CIT(A) Order costs taxpayer: Bangalore ITAT highlights proper appeal remedy
In a recent ruling that underscores the significance of following correct appellate procedures, the ITAT Bangalore Bench has dismissed an appeal filed by an assessee challenging an addition on account of cash deposits. The Tribunal emphasized that an appeal against a rectification order cannot address substantive additions confirmed in the original appellate order, highlighting a crucial distinction between rectification proceedings and substantive appeals under the Income Tax Act.
Chronology of Orders:
| Assessment order | 25.12.2019 |
| Appeal to CIT-A | 24.01.2020 |
| CIT(A) order | 12.06.2024 |
| Rectification application against CIT(A)’s order | 19.08.2024 |
| CIT(A)’s order on rectification application | 09.09.2024 |
| Rectification application against CIT(A)’s order dt 9.9.24 | 21.10.2024 |
| CIT(A)’s order on second rectification application dt 20.10.24 | 08.11.2024 |
The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to ₹36,34,500 on account of cash deposits in the bank. Tribunal noted that the order under challenge before the ITAT is CIT(A)’s order dt 08.11.2024 which is an order passed by CIT(A) u/s 154 r.w.s.250. 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.
