IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  22.02.2011 
.
 Present:        Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for the appellant. 
 Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Advocate for the respondent. 
.
 + ITA No. 330/2011 
.
 This appeal arises out of the order passed in an application preferred by 
 the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking 
 rectification of assessment order, which was also allowed by the Assessing 
 Officer finding that there was an error apparent on the face of it. 
 The facts, as appearing, from the orders of the authority below pointed 
 out that the aforesaid error are as follows:- 
 ?2. ?there was a scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) wherein addition was made on 
 account of excise duty reimbursement of M/s. Tecumseh Products India Ltd., 
 amounting to Rs.2.92 crores.  Thereafter, assessee filed an application u/s. 154 
 alleging that addition of excise duty reimbursement was a mistake apparent from 
 record.  Contention of assessee was that the company had transferred its 
 business of manufacturing compressors to Tecumseh Products India Ltd. (TPIL) as 
 on 31.3.1997.  The company had undertaken to reimburse any liability which may 
 arise in respect of period upto 31.3.1997 as per agreement.  During the year 
 ended 31.3.2005, the company has reimbursed liability of Rs.392 lakhs being the 
 demand raised by Excise Department against the TPIL in respect of the period 
 from August 1990 to April 1992.  The company had debited to its PandL Account 
 for the year ended 31.3.2005 an amount of Rs.90 lakhs and balance amount of 
 Rs.302 lakhs was included under the head ?loans and advances recoverable in cash 
 or kind or for value to be received.? It was further contended while adding the 
 excise duty the AO has wrongly assumed that amount of Rs.392 lakhs has been 
 debited to PandL Account during the year and that he had understood the term 
 ?previous year? used in Notes to Accounts for the year ended 31.3.2006 having 
 the same meaning as given in Income Tax Act whereas reference was to the 
 preceding year i.e. year ended 31.3.2005.  Amount of excise duty reimbursed was 
 neither debited in the profit and loss account nor claimed as deduction in the 
 computation of income therefore adding this amount to the returned income 
 amounts to mistake apparent from record.  However, the AO declined assessee?s 
 claim by observing that there was no mistake apparent in the order u/s 143(3). 
.
.
.
 3.       By the impugned order, CIT(A) held that the AO was not justified in 
 adding the amount of Rs.3.92 crores on account of excise duty reimbursement 
 since it was not claimed in profit and loss account.  Accordingly, the same was 
 treated as a mistake apparent in the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, against which 
 Revenue is in further appeal before us.? 
.
 In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for 
 consideration.  Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 
.
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
 M.L. MEHTA, J. 
 FEBRUARY 22, 2011 
 AK 
.
.
.
 13 #