Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Mumbai’s order dated 26.09.2025 passed in DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081239666(1), involving proceedings under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion has declined the assessee’s appeal on maintainability aspect in limine thereby concluding that such a course of action is not available in section 154 proceedings meant to correct pure arithmetical errors only.

This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement rival submissions. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the assessee/appellant had filed its return on 25.10.2014 stating loss of Rs. 11,22,82,818/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter framed section 143(3) “regular” assessment on 30.12.2016, determining total loss at Rs. 10,69,76,790/-. He thereafter finalised section 154 rectification in its case inter alia making section 68 addition of Rs. 6,71,73,096/- against which the assessee’s lower appeal now stands dismissed in limine.

The Revenue draws vehement support from the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion that he has rightly refused to admit the assessee’s lower appeal since requiring detailed adjudication with adequate reasons no more permissible in a section 154 rectification as settled in T.S. Balram , Income Tax Officer vs M/s. Volkart Brothers, Bombay (1971) 82 ITR 50(SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s stand herein. This is for the precise reason that the learned CIT(A) appears to have duly sought a remand report on the assessee’s additional evidence(s)/submission(s) filed in the course of the lower appellate proceedings. Learned counsel invites our attention to pages 58 to 76 in the paper book containing the Assessing Officer’s remand report dated 28.06.2016 as well which has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. Mr. Gupta’s case therefore is that the said remand report had adversely commented uponfor only a portion of the aforesaid addition to the tune of Rs. 1,96,12,120/- since the learned Assessing Officer agreed with the remaining amount of Rs. 4175,60,978/- in the assessee’s favour. And also that the assessee had filed its detailed rejoinder running into 70 pages regarding this latter remaining component as well as which has nowhere been considered.

We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that the learned CIT(A) approach in rejecting the assessee’s lower appeal in limine after having received a partly favourable remand report in its favour could not be concurred with. We further wish to reiterate here that even going by the first principle, his lower appellate discussion rather supports the assessee’s case as well that section 154 rectification in such an instant is not permissible(supra).

Be that as it may, we hereby conclude in this backdrop that the assessee deserves part relief to the extent the learned Assessing Officer had submitted a favourable remand report regarding the sum in question for Rs. 4,75,60,978/- which is hereby deleted in light of Smt. B Jayalakshmi vs ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad) and CIT vs DM Purnesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Karnataka) holding that the Revenue could not be treated as an aggrieved party even in such an instance. Coming to the remaining sum of Rs. 1,96,12,120/-, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the learned Assessing Officer for his afresh apt adjudication as per law.

No other ground or arguments has been pressed before us.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.