आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI , , श्री जॉजज जॉजज के उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला लेखा सदस्य के सिक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1136/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Veeranan Srinivasan, Deputy Commissioner of Income No.602, West Second Cross Street, Tax, K.K.Nagar, Madurai, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Tamil Nadu-625 020. Madurai.

[PAN: AXVPS5465K]

(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (

प्रत्यर्थी

/Respondent)

अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee/Revenue against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1073675845(1) dated 25.02.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2.0 The first issue raised by the assessee through its grounds of appeal is regarding the action of the Ld.AO in invoking powers u/s 154 and consequently determining total income of the assessee at Rs.2,57,43,235/- as well as charging of higher tax rate upon addition of Rs. 1,84,19,337/- u/s

69B and the action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the same.

3.0 Brief factual matrix of the case is that order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A was passed on 31.12.2018 in the case of the assessee engaged in money lending business. In this case a search and seizure action u/s 132 was conducted on 02.12.2016. As evident from para 6 on page 4 of the Ld.AO’s order, the Ld.AO had queried with the assessee with findings of the search, inter-alia, including the details of unaccounted sundry debtors, sundry creditors etc. After considering submissions of the assessee the Ld.AO proceeded to add an amount of Rs.1,84,19,337/- u/s 69B of the Act. Pertinently the Ld.AO had passed orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A for AY-2015- 16 and 2016-17 also dated 31.12.2018. Thus, in the orders for AY-2015-16 and 2016-17, addition of Rs.58,23,253/- and Rs.70,92,873/- respectively was made. Notings on para 7 on page 36 and para 7 on page 35 of the respective orders shows that the Ld.AO had made the additions after considering submissions of the assessee. After passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A dated 31.12.2018 for AY-2017-18, the Ld.AO noted that it had apparently done some misreporting of income figures. It was also noted that the addition of Rs.1,84,19,337/- u/s 69B of the Act attracted higher rate of taxation u/s 115BBE and therefore proceeded to suo moto initiate proceedings u/s 154. Consequently, notice was issued to the assessee as to why taxable income be not adopted at Rs.2,57,43,235/- as against that of Rs.2,14,50,536/- adopted by the system and as to why the addition of Rs.1,84,19,337/- u/s 69B of the Act be not be exposed to higher rate of taxation u/s 115BBE. In reply the assessee accepted the mistake albeit with the rider that there is another mistake apparent from records. Thus, it was indicated that through its own petition u/s 154 dated 01.08.2022 the assessee had pointed out that the figure of Rs.2,57,43,235/- adopted by the Ld.AO was incorrect as it had omitted to deduct an amount of Rs.86,67,857/- relevant to AY-2015-16. The assessee had submitted that the correct figure would be Rs.1,70,75,380/- ( Rs.2,57,43,235/ - Rs.86,67,857/- ). The assessee had accordingly submitted that it has no objection to the proposed rectification consideration of adoption of his figures mentioned supra. As regards the issue of higher rate of taxation u/s 115BBE the assessee had argued that the impugned section was effective from 01.04.2017 and hence was relevant to AY 2018- 19. T