ACIT CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI V. SAMEER MALHOTRA, HYDERABAD

MA 294/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application filed by the revenue seeking rectification of an earlier order dated 28.12.2022 concerning ITA No. 4040/Del/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue challenged the merits and jurisdiction of the Tribunal's previous decision. The Tribunal, after reviewing the application and the previous order, concluded that the issues raised by the revenue did not constitute errors apparent on the face of the records, as they involved debatable points of law or fact.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 825155 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2023
• Other Referred Cases: T. S. Balaram vs M/S. Volkart Brothers
• Laws Referred To: T. S. Balaram vs M/S. Volkart Brothers reported in 1971 AIR 2204
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PARKASH

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA 294/Del/2023 (In ITA No.4040/Del/2019) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ACIT, Circle-70(1), New Delhi Vs. Sameer Malhotra, F-102, Trendset Winz, nanakramguda, Finaical District, Hyderabad, Telegana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AASPM4471H Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19/12/2025 Date of pronouncement 19/12/2025 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.: 1. The instant Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the revenue seeking rectification in the order dated 28.12.2022 in ITA No. 4040/Del/2019 for AY 2015-16 passed by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal. 2. Having regard to the averments made by the revenue and considering the order passed by the Bench on 28.12.2022 which is sought to be recalled, it is found that fresh hearing is required to be given on the issue itself as the Revenue basically challenged the merits of the matter and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It is observed that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may Printed from counselvise.com MA 294/Del/2023 Sameer Malhotra Page | 2 conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the records. Decision on a debatable point of law or fact cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record as already held in the case of T. S. Balaram vs M/S. Volkart Brothers reported in1971 AIR 2204 found to be applicable here and thus in the absence of any error apparent on the fact of the records, the application preferred by the assessee is found to be devoid of any merit and not maintainable and thus rejected. 3. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/12/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31/12/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "