2019 (10) TMI 75 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 154 - estimation of income in respect of leased fish tanks - as assessee has not filed sufficient evidence to substantiate that he has taken fish tanks on lease, therefore, the Assessing Officer estimated the income as per the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) by treating it as his own land - HELD THAT - In the 154 order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 04/04/2016, he gave a categorical finding that there is no mistake apparent on record to rectify his order passed on 07/07/2015. We have also gone through the order passed by the Assessing Officer and find there is no mistake apparent on record committed by the Assessing Officer to rectify the order. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. After gone through the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by him. Thus, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay.
2. Estimation of income in respect of leased fish tanks and whether the direction given by the CIT(A) constitutes a mistake apparent on record.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay
The appeals by the assessee were directed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04. There was a delay of 9 days in filing each appeal, which the assessee attributed to medical reasons. The ITAT found a sufficient cause for the delay and thus condoned the delay, allowing the appeals to be heard.

Issue 2: Estimation of income in respect of leased fish tanks
The main issue in this appeal revolved around the estimation of income in relation to leased fish tanks and whether the direction given by the CIT(A) constituted a mistake apparent on record. The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income of the leased fish tanks subject to the production of evidence by the assessee. The Assessing Officer found defects in the evidence provided by the assessee and estimated the income accordingly. The assessee filed a petition for rectification, which was dismissed by the Assessing Officer, citing lack of tangible evidence for lease rentals paid to outsiders. The ITAT upheld the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the base agreement provided by the appellant had several defects and lacked essential details. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the ITAT affirmed the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the estimation of income from leased fish tanks and the dismissal of the appeals filed by the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing tangible evidence to support claims and the limited scope of rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.