Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

i.    PV Ajay Narayanan v ITO 57 TTJ 159 (Bangalore)
ii    D.M. Neterwalla v. Commissioner 122 ITR (Bom)

The ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that the CIT(A) has categorically given a finding that the assessee has specifically stated that the Assessing Officer cannot charge section by invoking section 154 of the Act but the Assessing Officer has in fact set out the assessment order in consonance with section 69A but inadvertently wrote 269SS while passing the order on 29-12-2019. Thus, it is a typographical mistake which was rightly rectified u/s. 154 of the Act.

7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee while filing the rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act mentioned in the rectification application that the addition difference of Rs. 1,01,25,000/- u/s. 69A was already made by the Assessing Officer and therefore while coming to the unsecured loans and the addition thereafter the Assessing Officer has categorically taken into account section 269SS which can clearly be seen in The Vejalpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT para 9 of the original assessment order by changing the same nomenclature as well as the content in consonance with section 69A, the observation in the original assessment order for the addition of section 69A does not fall as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act. While rectifying the order, the Assessing Officer should have confronted the assessee in consonance with the application of 69A in respect of unsecured loans which the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The rectification order is simply making it a typographical mistake but the assessee has made clear in application u/s. 154 of the Act that it is a typographical mistake but the very applicability of section 269SS in assessee's case will not/should not have been applied. Thus, the rectification while giving the scope of 69A has not taken into any evidences as regards credibility of the loan, the source of the fund of the loan, identity of the parties for which the details are required and merely on the basis of PAN, voter card, form no. 16 and Aaddhar card of the details of depositors will not suffice the said addition. These inquiries and verifications have not been done by the Assessing Officer while making the said single line observation in the rectification order. These aspects were totally ignored by the CIT(A). Thus, it will be appropriate that whether the applicability of section 69A is justifiable or not in assessee's case and whether the assessee proves the nomenclature of unsecured loan and its proper demarcation in his profit and loss account, we are directing the Assessing Officer to verify the same after calling upon the evidences to that effect. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. Thus, ITA No. 1030/Ahd/2023 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.