NFAC Order u/s 250 – Appeal against Rectification u/s 154 (AY 2012-13)

Case Details

• Assessee : Prakashbhai Manchharam Mistry
• PAN : AQTPM1279Q • AY : 2012-13
• Appeal filed on 14-Aug-2021 against rectification order u/s 154u/s\,154 dated 15-Jul-2021
• NFAC Order date : 12-Dec-2024 (DIN 1071159222)

Procedural History

• Original return filed 16-Mar-2013, declared income 1,72,8501{,}72{,}850
• Re-opening : notice u/s 148u/s\,148 (served after 31-Mar-2019)
• Assessment completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147u/s\,144\,r.w.s.\,147 on 22-Oct-2019
– Total income determined 57,11,08057{,}11{,}080
– Components :
• Undisclosed capital gain on agricultural land 35,00,20035{,}00{,}200
• Addition u/s 50Cu/s\,50C (same land) 22,10,88422{,}10{,}884
• Rectification application filed 01-Jan-2021 alleging duplication and other issues
• AO’s 154 order (15-Jul-2021)
– Deleted duplicate addition 22,10,88422{,}10{,}884
– Revised total income 35,11,08435{,}11{,}084
• Present appeal challenges the 154 order

Grounds Raised in Appeal (condensed)

  1. Improper issue/service of notice u/s 148u/s\,148; proceedings time-barred

  2. AO ignored submissions, public-domain data & CBDT circulars

  3. Land is agricultural, beyond municipal limits → not a capital asset; sections 4545 & 50C50C inapplicable

  4. Ready-reckoner rate wrongly taken as on deed date

  5. AO failed to pass a speaking 154 order on all points

NFAC Observations

• Scope of s 154s\,154 confined to “mistake apparent from record”; only computational or patent errors can be rectified
• Duplicate addition of 22,10,88422{,}10{,}884 already removed by AO ⇒ rectification complete
• Remaining issues (validity of reopening, taxability of agricultural land, valuation, service of notice, etc.) concern merits of original assessment, not rectifiable u/s 154u/s\,154
• No further mistake apparent on record; therefore nothing survives for appellate adjudication

Decision / Outcome

• Appeal dismissed; rectification order sustained
• No change in assessed income 35,11,08435{,}11{,}084 or tax demand

Key Take-aways / Law Points

• s 154s\,154 remedy limited to obvious & patent mistakes; issues requiring investigation or interpretation must be pursued by normal appeals/revision
• Once rectification has cured the computational error, further objections unrelated to such mistake are outside appellate scope when appeal is against a 154 order
• Agricultural land outside specified municipal limits remains a fact-dependent question and must be contested at assessment/first-appeal stage, not via rectification