1. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MA Nos. 71 to 75/JU/2013
A/0 ITA Nos. 140 to 144/Jodh/2012
(A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2009-10)
M/s J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust Vs. ITO, Ward - 2
Udyog Vihar, Sriganganagar
Sriganganagar
PAN No. : AARPT 8591 L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Suresh Ojha
Shri Ashok Khatri
Department by : Shri G.R. Kokani
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2013
Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2013
ORDER
PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M.
Through these Miscellaneous Applications [MA], the
applicant [assessee] has sought rectification of alleged
mistakes u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

2. 2
[hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short] in the
Tribunal Order [TO] dated 22.03.2013 passed in this case
in ITA Nos. 140 to 144/JU/2013 for A.Ys. 2005-06 to A.Ys.
2009-10.
2. An application u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
[hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short] has been submitted
by the assessee by pointing out certain mistakes which are apparent
from the record in the appellate order.
3. The AR of the assessee, during the course of the arguments,
pointed out and relied on the application dated 2.7.2013 submitted
by him. The mistakes pointed out for the assessment years 2005-06
to 2009-10 which are common, are decided hereunder. The
mistakes which are not common shall be dealt on separately.
4. The first mistake pointed out is that in the order of the
Tribunal at page No. 46, the word in the assessment year 2008-09
has been typed and nothing has been mentioned under the head of
2008-09 nor thereupon. It was argued that the same is a mistake.

3. 3
5. The D.R. also agreed that the argument and raised no
objection
6. We have considered the argument and are of the opinion that
this could be expunged which is a typing error occurred while
typing, therefore, the mistake is treated as a mistake and rectified
accordingly.
7. The second mistake pointed out is that in the order of the
Tribunal at page No. 58 paragraph 16 in the second line word serial
has been typed. It was argued that there is no direct nexus and
bearing that the word serial. It was also requested that the section
should be in place of serial.
8. We have considered the submission and found that this is
purely a typographical mistake; therefore, the word serial is
replaced by the word section. The mistake pointed out is accepted.
9. The next mistake pointed out is at page No. 62 in paragraph
16.5 in second line word ACIT has been typed. The AR argued that

4. 4
the order under section 144 A is passed by the JCIT who is having
the power so as to passed the order under this section. The
attention was also drawn towards the copy of the order of section
144 A of the Income-tax Act. It was argued so as to replace the
word ACIT by the JCIT.
10. We have considered argument and found that the mistake
pointed out is a mistake apparent from the record and rectified
accordingly.
11. The next mistake pointed at page No. 68 of the order in
paragraph 17.7 in respect of charging of interest. It was argued that
the paragraph 18 is in continuation of 17.6 paragraphs, therefore,
argued that this should be placed at proper place.
12. We have considered the argument and found that the mistake
pointed out is a mistake apparent from the record. We are placing
it in continuation of para 17.6. This mistake is accepted and
rectified.

5. 5
13. In paragraph No. 22, conclusion of appeal of Dr. Mahesh
Maheshwari is available. It was argued that the same findings given
in the order of Dr. Mahesh Maheshwari, was not related to Dr.
Mahesh Maheshwari and never argued. The attention was also drawn
towards the written submission submitted in course of hearing.
14. We have considered the argument and of the opinion that due
to inadvertence this paragraph has been typed in order of the
appeal of Dr. Mahesh Maheshwari, in fact these are related to the
J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust, therefore, we are placing it at the
appropriate place in continuation of paragraph No. below the 17.5
in case of M/s J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust.
15. The A.R. also argued that the Hon’ble Bench at page No. 67
mentioned certain facts of the case law referred in course of
hearing but name thereof was not mentioned. The mistake pointed
out is a mistake while passing the order reliance was made on
Lancer Army School Society Vs. ACIT reported in 90 TTJ 1024, but
the name thereof was not mentioned, therefore, we are adding one
paragraph at the top of the paragraph No. 22.3 at page 75.

6. 6
“The AR in course of hearing relied upon the order of the
Tribunal reported in 90 TTJ page 1024, in respect of Lancer
Army School Society vs. ACIT the attention was drawn
towards the relevant portion which is being reproduced
hereunder.
“After hearing the parties, we are inclined to accept
the contention of the learned counsel that the amounts
credited to the trust fund duly reflected in the books of
account cannot be the subject-matter of block
assessment and no addition in the block assessment can
be made in the absence of any evidence found during
the course of search operation impeaching the
genuineness of such credits. The learned counsel
submitted that the assessee filed returns of income for
assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99 before the date of
search. The trust fund is duly reflected in audited
balance sheets filed with each return of income. In fact,
the assessing officer has himself taken note of the fact
that the trust fund wherein the aforesaid credits occur
is duly reflected in the ledger maintained by the
assessee. No evidence was found in the course of search
that donation received for trust fund was not in fact
capital receipt but revenue receipt. The assessment of
undisclosed income can be made on the basis of
evidence found as a result of search and such other

7. 7
material or information as are available with the
assessing officer and relatable to such evidence as
provided in section 158B(6). Block assessment under
Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not
intended to be a substitute for regular assessment. Its
scope and ambit is limited in that sense to material
unearthed during search. It is in addition to the regular
assessment already done or to be done. The assessment
for the block period can only be done on the basis of
evidence found as a result of the search and such other
material or information as are available with the
assessing officer. In support of this view, reliance is
placed on the following decisions which have been cited
by the assessee in the statement of facts as well as
written submissions filed before the Commissioner
(Appeals) which do not appear to have been considered
by the Commissioner (Appeals)”
17. The above paragraph is affixed at the appropriate place i.e. at
top of the page No. 75 paragraph No. 22.3, therefore, this mistake
is also accepted as a mistake apparent from the record.
18. The AR also pointed out that in the title of the appeal, the
title has been typed as J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust Vs. Income-tax

8. 8
Officer Ward 2nd
Sriganganagar. Whereas the author of the order/
Assessing authority is ACIT, Central Circle, Bikaner. In support of
this our attention was also drawn towards the order of the Assessing
authority and requested so as to rectify the title by submitting that
Income Tax Officer, Ward 2nd
Sri Ganganagar may kindly be
replaced by ACIT Central Circle, Bikaner this is a mistake apparent
from the record.
19. We have considered the argument and also perused the
record. The fact mentioned by the AR of the assesse is correct;
therefore, the word Income-tax Officer Ward 2nd
Sriganganagar is
replaced by the word ACIT Central Circle, Bikaner. This mistake is
accepted being a mistake apparent from the record.
Assessment year 2007-08
20. The AR of the assessee also argued that the ground No.11 & 18
taken in the memo of appeal was not disposed off. He also relied
upon the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in case of Sh. Ramesh
Chander Modi reported in 249 ITR page 323 and the order of this

9. 9
Bench in case of the Dr. Ashok Upal MA No. 97/JU/2007 Appeal ITA
No. 762/JU/2005 dated 22.08.2008 in which this Bench held that if
the ground taken in the memo of appeal not disposed off is a
mistake apparent from the record. In support of the verification the
ground was read out from the memo of appeal.
21. The DR argued that the order of the Tribunal is a conscious
order and the mistake cannot be rectified under section 254 (2) of
the Income-tax Act.
22. We have considered the argument of both sides and by
respectfully following the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court
reported in 249 ITR page 323 we are in agreement that argument
and ground taken in the memo of appeal remained indisposed off is
a mistake apparent from record.
23. The ground No. 11 is in respect of addition u/s 69/69C and
making the addition amounting to Rs. 6398209.00. The Income-tax
Officer made addition amounting to Rs. 6398209.00. The Assessing
authority at page No. 20 of the assessment order made addition on

10. 10
the ground of valuation of the property constructed during the year
under consideration. The basis for making the addition is that the
addition made in the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 i.e. the
immediately preceding year, the additions were deleted by the ld.
CIT(A) and department went in the appeal the relevant portion is as
under :
“The assessee has failed to file any specific reply on the issue
and has given an evasive reply as it is not possible to grant
further extension / adjournment at the fag end of the
assessment proceeding which have been delayed due to the
non cooperative attitude of the assessee. The similar addition
is in respect of assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07 were made
on the basis of valuation report on this ground and the second
appeal filed by the department are pending before the
Hon’ble ITAT.”
24. We have considered the argument of both the sides. The issue
in hand is in respect of valuation of the property and addition made
as per the valuation report of DVO and registered valuer. The issue
is settled issue by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. The
assessee, before the Commissioner of Income-tax also relied upon
the judgment of various courts including the judgment of CIT Vs.

11. 11
Hotel Joshi 242 ITR 478 (Raj) and CIT Vs. Sri Prem Kumar Murdia 296
ITR 508.The issue is covered by the judgment of Jurisdictional High
Court. This fact is of the consistent view that the valuation should
be made as per the local PWD rate for example we wish to mention
only one name of order of this Hon’ble Bench in case of Uttam
Chand Nahar Vs. ITO reported in 28 TW 435. This Bench is of
consistent view, therefore, the addition made by the Income-tax
Officer under section 69C cannot be sustained, therefore, we
accepted this ground and deleting the addition, the Assessing
authority is directed to adopt the valuation as per the order of this
Bench.
Assessment year 2008-09
25. The ground No. 11, 18 & 19 remained undisposed off.
Principally the ground No. 11 & 18 are common for the assessment
year 2007-08. The addition amounting to Rs. 47,85,885/- on account
of valuation report was made. The addition is deleted in view of
finding given in details in assessment year 2007-08.

12. 12
26. The ground No.19 is related in respect of the capitation fees
amounting to Rs. 16,15,000/- the Income-tax Officer made addition
amounting to Rs. 1615000.00 being the capitation fees/ donation
for admission as per para 14C of the order dated 23.12.2011. The
Assessing Officer made addition relying the seized document and
statement of Dr. Shyam Sunder Tantia. The ld. CIT(A) dealt with
the issue at page No. 30 Para 11. The Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) restricted the addition amounting to Rs. 7,33,700/-. The
AR argued that the addition made and sustained is illegal and
against the law. In this respect he relied upon the argument in
respect of the surrender of income and preparation of books as per
the seized document. It was argued that the addition referred
above has been considered while preparing the books of account
from the seized document. All the entries are reflecting in the
seized documents. This plea was also taken before the
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and before the Assessing
officer.

13. 13
27. We have considered the argument of both the sides and of the
view that we have also decided this issue in the order of the appeal
and accepted the books prepared from the seized material and also
held that the books cannot be rejected. The income has been
surrendered in the hands of Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia, in whose case
the protective addition were made and substantive addition in case
of the trust. We have decided this issue and deleted the other
protective addition made on the basis of statement and seized
document, therefore, also deleting the addition in case of the trust
and treating it as substantive in case of Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia in
the result this ground is accepted.
Assessment year 2009-10
28. The ground Nos. 11 and 18 remained undisposed off.
Principally the ground No. 11 & 18 are common for the assessment
year 2008-09.
29. The ground No.18 is related in respect of the capitation fees
amounting to Rs. 78,81,200/- the Income-tax Officer made addition
amounting to Rs. 78,81,200/-being the capitation fees/ donation for

14. 14
admission as per para 15 of the order dated 23.12.2011. The
Assessing Officer made addition relying the seized document and
statement of Dr.Shyam Sunder Tantia.
30. We have considered the arguments of both the sides and of
the view that we have also decided this issue in the order of the
appeal and accepted the books prepared from the seized material
and also held that the books cannot be rejected. We have accepted
the contention in the assessment year 2008-09.
31. The income has been surrendered in the hands of Sh. Shyam
Sunder Tantia, in whose case the protective addition was made and
substantive addition in case of the trust. We have decided this issue
and deleted the other protective addition made on the basis of
statement and seized document, therefore, also deleting the
addition in case of the trust and treating it as substantive in case of
Sh. Shyam Sunder Tantia in the result this ground is accepted.

15. 15
32. We have considered the rival submissions and found that these
are mistakes apparent on record. Therefore, the same are rectified
accordingly.
33. In the result, the M.A. of the assessee is allowed.
Order Pronounced in the Court on 29th
August, 2013.
Sd/- sd/-
(N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 29th
August, 2013.
VL/-
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR