Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
The Jalgaon Peoples Co-Op Bank ... vs Circle 1, Jalgaon on 6 May, 2026
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "बी" न्यायपीठ पु णे में ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT
AND
MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.342/PUN/2025
धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16
The Jalgaon Peoples Co-op. Bank Limited, ITO, Circle-1,
152, Polan Peth, Dana Bazar, Jalgaon-425001 Jalgaon
Vs.
PAN : AACAT1603M
अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent
Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal & Shubham Jain
(Virtual)
Department by : Shri Amit Bobde
Date of hearing : 23-02-2026
Date of 06-05-2026
Pronouncement :
आदे श / ORDER
PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.12.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)/NFAC"] pertaining to Assessment Year ("AY") 2015-16.
2. The assessee has raised the following solitary ground of appeal :
"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT-
(A) was justified in upholding the act of the learned AO in disallowing the business loss brought forward by the appellant vide a rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act.
2. Appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing."
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income on 29.09.2015 for AY 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.9,14,46,650/- which was subsequently revised by filing a revised return on 30.04.2016 declaring total income of Rs.10,51,42,610/-. The revised return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") vide intimation order dated 15.09.2016 accepting the returned income. No assessment u/s 143(3) or reassessment u/s 147 was initiated for relevant AY 2015-16. Subsequently, the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") passed a rectification order u/s 154 read with section 143(1) of the Act dated 17.09.2021 consequent to order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 2 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 16.10.2019 for AY 2014-15 wherein the addition of Rs.12,80,68,490/- was made on account of bad debt due to which returned loss of Rs.17,54,54,145/- was reduced to Rs.4,73,85,655/- for AY 2014-15. From the return of income filed for AY 2015-16, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has set off of its business income for AY 2015-16 against brought forward business loss of previous year to the tune of Rs.14,41,54,160/- as well as unabsorbed deprecation of Rs.3,18,23,480/-. According to Ld. AO as per order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, the set off of brought forward business loss was allowable only to the tune of Rs.4,73,85,655/- in AY 2015-16. However, the assessee has taken excess set off of brought forward business loss against the regular business income of AY 2015-16. Thus, to give effect of addition made for AY 2015-16 the Ld. AO issued notice u/s 154 of the Act dated 20.08.2021 calling for assessee's explanation in this regard. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that proposed adjustment does not amount to a mistake, much less mistake apparent from the record to be amenable to section 154 of the Act. The assessee further submitted that additions made pertaining to AY 2014-15 are subjudice and therefore requested the Ld. AO to keep the proposed proceedings u/s 154 in abeyance till the decision of the appeal. Rejecting the assessee contention and taking the note of the fact that the assessee's appeal challenging the order u/s 263 for AY 2014-15 before the Tribunal has been dismissed by deciding the impugned issue in favor of the Department, the Ld. AO proceeded to pass the impugned rectification order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Act on 17.09.2021 seeking to rectify the intimation order dated 15.09.2016 by making necessary change in brought forward business loss thereby assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.23,32,61,100/- in consequence of the fact that the assessee has already utilized the carry forward loss of AY 2014-15 and an addition of Rs.12,80,68,490/- has been made in AY 2014-15.
4. Aggrieved by such rectification order dated 17.09.2021 passed u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Act by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee contended that the impugned rectification order passed by the Ld. AO on 17.09.2021 is time barred in nature and thus bad in law. The is because the intimation order u/s 143(1) was issued on 15.09.2016 i.e. financial year 2016-17 and four year thereafter are financial year 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. Thus, the period of 4 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended expires on 31.03.2021 whereas the order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(1) was issued on 3 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 17.09.2021. However, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC rejected the assessee's contention for the reason that the period cited by the assessee falls during the COVID pandemic period and duly covered by the extension order issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by observing as under:
"6. Decision I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order, submission made by the appellant and the case laws relied upon. The appellant has raised 2 grounds of appellant in the present appeal which are against the action of the AO in passing the order u/s.154 of the Act. The appellant during the appellate proceedings submitted that the order issued by the AO u/s. 154 rws 143(1) for AY 2015-16 issued on 17/9/2021. Whereas the order sought to be rectified by the AO is an intimation letter u/s.143(1) dated 15/9/2016. The appellant contended that said rectification order passed by the AO dtd. 17/9/2021 is time barred in nature and bad in law by quoting sub-section 7 of section 154 "save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed". Therefore, appellant contended that period of 4 years from the end of FY in which order sought to be amended in appellant's case expired on 31/3/2021. The contention of the appellant has been considered, but however the same need to be seen in consonance with Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Miscellaneous Application no.21 of 2022 and M.A. No. 665 of 2021 and suo moto writ petition no.3 of 2023 dated January 10, 2022. In that order and earlier orders due to surge in covid cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the time limit of all the proceedings where the period of limitation gets expired from 15/3/2020 to 28/2/2022. Accordingly, the period cited by the appellant falls during the covid period and duly covered by the extension order issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of that appellant's contention that rectification order passed by the AO is time barred is not correct as per law and hence same is rejected. The ground of appeal no.1 is dismissed."
5. Further, as regards the assessee's other ground challenging assumption of jurisdiction u/s 154 by the Ld. AO seeking to rectify the claim of loss and unabsorbed depreciation which according to assessee is not a mistake apparent from record, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC after considering assessee's submission and analyzing the provisions of section 154(1) of the Act and further relying on certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee, by observing as under:
"6.1 In ground no.2, the appellant has contended that AO has sought to rectify claim of loss and unabsorbed depreciation which is not a mistake apparent from record. The AO has sought to rectify the return income of AY 2015-16 based on the assessment order for AY 2014-15 which has been appealed against by the appellant. Since the matter is sub-judice till date and also debatable, the AO's action is invalid and bad in law. The facts of the case are that the appellant has filed the return claiming loss and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 17.59 crore for AY 2014-15. The said loss of Rs. 17.59 crore was set off by the appellant against the business income for AY 2015-16 while filing the return of income. Later, the case of the appellant for AY 2014-15 was reopened u/s. 143(3) rws 263 and disallowance to the tune of Rs. 12.80 crore was made for AY 2014-15. Based on this, AO sought to rectify the intimation order u/s. 143(1) for AY 2015-16 by reducing the claim of loss of Rs.17.79 crore to Rs.4.99 crore (by reducing the amount of addition made of Rs. 12.80 crore for AY 2014-15).
4 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16From the supra, what AO sought to rectify in his 154 order was to change the allowance of loss claimed by the appellant. This does not require elaborate reasoning or debate. Simply AO has to give effect to the determined loss in AY 2014-15 in the order of AY 2015-16 passed u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act. However, appellant has contended this action of AO in his appeal. Before adjudicating the issue, we need to examine the provisions of section 154 which is reproduced as below.
Section 154(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 reads as under:-
"Rectification of Mistake:-
154. (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, an income-tax authority referred to in section 115 may-
(a) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 2004
(b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143
(c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 2004 154(2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned-
(a) may make an amendment under sub-section (1) of its own motion, and
(b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee [or by the deductor), and where the authority concerned is the Commissioner (Appeals)], by the (Assessing) Officer also.
The meaning of the expression, "error apparent on the face of record" is wider than the expression "mistake apparent from the record". An Assessing Officer is not incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 if such officer had committed a glaring mistake of fact or law while passing the assessment order as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. referred to supra. If an Assessing Officer had also failed to do what was required under the law at the time of passing Assessment Order and has passed an Assessment Order with such defects, such assessment orders can be rectified by the officer by exercising power under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. 1961. In this case, the effort of the Assessing Officer while exercising the power under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961to rectify the mistake of allowing the excess allowance of loss claimed by the appellant in AY 2015-16 ignoring order passed u/s. 143(3) rws 263 for AY 2014-15. The action of the AO is nothing but change in the figures of loss available on record which he has erroneously allowed before and it can be considered as a mistake apparent from record.
In the case of S.A.L.Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas AIR 1965 SC 1818, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "an omission to do what he was bound to do under law was an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore the Income-tax Officer was competent to rectify an order passed under section 35 of the Income-tax Act.
In the case of Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held that the rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed by the officer passing the order comes apparent from the record. The court held rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. The Court however held that the point which was not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt as mistake apparent on the record.
In the case of T.S.Balaram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "a mistake apparent on the record" must be an obvious and 5 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 a patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions.
The above case laws and facts of the case as discussed above clearly point out the contention of the appellant in this appeal has no merit and the action of the AO passing order u/s. 154 was within the provisions of law. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission of the appellant and hence same needs to be rejected. The ground of appeal no.2 of the appellant is dismissed."
6. The Ld. AR reiterating the contention raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC submitted that the impugned rectification order is barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 154(7) of the Act and therefore the same is invalid and bad in law. The Ld. AR filed written submissions in support of his claim, which is reproduced here under:
6 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 7 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 8 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 9 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-167. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
8. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties, perused the order of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, paper book(s) filed by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee as well as the written submission filed by the Ld. AR. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The assessee's return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation order passed on 15.09.2016 accepting the income returned by the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed the rectification order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(1) on 17.09.2021 10 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 seeking to rectify the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 15.09.2016. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC rejected the assessee's appeal challenging the validity of the impugned rectification order as being time barred by limitation for the reasons which we have already reproduced in the preceding paragraph. Before us, referring to the provisions of section 154(7) (reproduced above) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that section 154(7) of the Act provides for a time limit for issuance of an order u/s 154 wherein it is stated that no amendment u/s 154 shall be made after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. As in the present case, the period of 4 years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be amended (i.e. intimation order u/s 143 (1) of the Act dated 15.09.2016) expired on 31.03.2021 and rectification order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(1) has been issued on 17.09.2021, the said rectification order is not valid in law.
9. It is the submission of the Ld. AR that the reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for rejecting assessee's contention on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's suo-moto COVID 19 extension orders dated 20.03.2020 and 10.01.2022, is misplaced. He submitted that these orders were issued to alleviate hardship faced by the litigants in filing appeals, petitions and other proceedings during COVID pandemic period. These orders are procedural in nature and do not extend or enlarge the substantive statutory period governing the jurisdiction of statutory authorities. According to Ld. AR the limitation period prescribed u/s 154(7) for passing rectification order is a jurisdictional bar which cannot be overridden by the Hon'ble Supreme court's order(s) (supra).
10. Without prejudice to his above argument, the Ld. AR also contended that the only possible statutory source for extending time limits for departmental action could have been the Taxation and Other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020 ("TOLA"). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not expressly referred to the same. It is his submission that even TOLA selectively extends time limits only in respect of assessment and re-assessment proceeding specified u/s 153 and section 153B of the Act. It does not extend or relax the limitation period prescribed under 154(7) governing rectification proceedings.
11. On the other hand, the argument of the Revenue is that the rectification order has been passed well within the extended time line as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction read with TOLA and relevant 11 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 notification(s) and hence the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is completely justified in upholding the rectification order passed u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Act by the Ld. AO.
12. We have perused the Hon'ble Supreme Court's suo-moto order(s) dated 20.03.2020 and 10.01.2022, for extension of limitation excluding the COVID 19 pandemic period, the relevant provisions of the TOLA and the CBDT notifications issued thereafter from time to time to give effect to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Undisputedly, the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court catered the need to obviate difficulties that could have been faced by the litigants in filling petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other quasi judicial proceedings within the period of limitation described under the Act due to the outbreak of COVID 19 pandemic. Section 3 of TOLA reads as under:
12 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 13 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-1613. From the plain reading of the above provisions, we find that section 3(1)(a) of TOLA is widely worded to cover any proceedings or passing of any order or issuance of any notice, intimation, notification, sanction, or approval or such other action by any authorities, commission and tribunal by whatever name called under provisions of the specified Act. Thus, in our view, section 3(1)(a) would encompass extension of time limit even for rectification proceedings under the Income Tax Act.
14. The CBDT Notifications issued in pursuance of section 3(1) of TOLA are reproduced hereunder, for ease of reference:
14 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 15 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 16 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 17 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-1615. Perusal of CBDT Notification No. 93/2020 dated 31.12.2020 reveals that the said Notification extended time limit till 31.03.2021 for completion or compliance of any action specified under section 3(1)(a) of TOLA. As seen above section 3(1)(a) of TOLA applies in respect of completion of any proceedings or passing of any order and thus in our view TOLA would extend/relax the limitation prescribed u/s 154(7) of the Act governing the rectifications proceedings.
16. Subsequent Notification No. 10/2021 dated 27.02.2021 which was issued in partial modification of the Notifications No. 93/2020 dated 31.12.2020 inter alia provided further extension/relaxation till the respective date(s) specified therein relating to passing of any order for imposition of penalty and for assessment or re-assessment under the Act, and the time limit for completion of such action u/s 153 or section 153B 18 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 thereof. Similarly, Notification No. 38/2021 dated 27.04.2021 has been issued in partial modification of the earlier Notification(s) No. 93/2020 and No. 10/2021 and extended the time limit till 30.06.2021 in respect of completion of any action referred to in section 3(1)(a) of TOLA relating to passing of any order for assessment or reassessment under the Act and the time limit for completion of such action u/s 153/153B thereof and passing of an order u/s 144C(13), issuance of notice u/s 148 as per time limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Act. Also, the CBDT Circular No. 74/2021 dated 25.06.2021 has been issued in partial modification of all the earlier CBDT Notifications (supra) which further extends the timeline till 30.09.2021 in respect of completion of any action referred to in section 3(1)(a) of TOLA relating to passing of any order for assessment or reassessment under the Act and timeline for completion of such action u/s 153 or 153B thereof and for imposition of penalty under the Act.
17. Before us, the Ld. AR has taken a plea that the only possible statutory source for extended time limit for departmental action could have been TOLA. Although the Ld. CIT(A) has not expressly referred to the provision of TOLA and dismissed the appeal of the assessee relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court order(s) (supra), it is his plea that even TOLA selectively extend time limit only in respect of assessment and reassessment proceedings specifically u/s 153 and 153B of the Act and the statue does not extend or relax the limitation prescribed u/s 154(7) of the Act governing rectification proceedings. Therefore, even considering the provisions of TOLA, a time barred rectification order shall be invalid in law.
18. After considering the relevant provisions of TOLA read with CBDT's Notification(s) (supra) issued from time to time, we do not find force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. In our considered view, section 3(1)(a) of TOLA will squarely cover the present case and would encompass in its scope the limitation prescribed u/s 154(7) governing rectification proceedings as well. The initial Notification No. 93/2020 dated 31.12.2020 extended the timeline for completion or compliance of any action referred to in section 3(1)(a) of TOLA which inter alia includes completion of any proceedings under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The subsequent Notifications granting further extensions/relaxation states the specified actions relating to penalty and assessments/reassessments orders, and section 154 is not expressly mentioned therein. These subsequent Notifications are issued only in 19 ITA No. 342/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 partial modification of the earlier Notification(s) whereas the initial Notification No. 93/2020 dated 31.12.2020 covers all the actions specified u/s 3(1) of TOLA including therein completion of any proceedings or passing of any order or issuance of any intimation etc. under the Income Tax Act.
19. Having said so, as stated in the preceding paragraphs, in our view, the scope of section 3(1) of TOLA is wide enough to cover the rectification proceedings/order and the Notification(s) issued in pursuance thereof only specifies the extended time limit for certain sections of the Act mentioned therein. It does not override the said provisions of TOLA.
20. Thus, for the reasons stated above and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the relevant provisions of TOLA read with CBDT Notifications (supra), we are of the opinion that the rectification order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 154 r.w.s. section 143(1) of the Act on 17.09.2021 within the extended time limit. We therefore uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly dismissed.
21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th May, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.K. Panda) (Astha Chandra)
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; दिन ां क / Dated : 06th May, 2026.
रदि
Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar
Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.05.07 14:59:17
+05'30'
आदे श की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant.
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. The Pr. CIT concerned.
4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, "बी" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, "B" Bench, Pune.
5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File.
//सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिे श नुस र / BY ORDER, सहायक पं जीकार/ Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune