AMMAYAPPER TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,THIRUVALLUR V. PCIT 1, CHENNAI

MA 14/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ammayapper Textiles Pvt. Ltd., which sought to recall a Tribunal order that dismissed their appeal regarding the disallowance of employees' contributions to PF & ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's initial decision was based on the interpretation of section 263, which allows the PCIT to revise any order that is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had not considered relevant Supreme Court and ITAT decisions that supported their claim. However, the Tribunal found that these decisions were indeed considered in the original ruling and did not warrant a change in the outcome.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107288 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 255 (SC), M/s. Heylands Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA No.1539/Chny/2024, Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. in TCA No.156 of 2006
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOWTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: MURALIDHARAN; C.A
• Section: 147; 254(2)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी यस यस िव\u001bने रिव, \u0011ा ियक सद एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम' BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A No.14/Chny/2025 (Arising in ITA No.1201/Chny/2024) िनधा ?रण वष? /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ammayapper Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Perambakkam Road, Gandhipet, Ulandai Post, Thiruvallur – 602105. [PAN: AAFCA 2634N] Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-1. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीला थI की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Muralidharan, C.A KLथI की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवा ई की ता रीख/Date of Hearing : 14.03.2025 घोषणा की ता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 01.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : By way of this Miscellaneous Application (MA), the assessee is seeking recall of the Tribunal order passed in ITA No.1201/Chny/2024 dated 10.10.2024, wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 2. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has stated that while deciding the appeal against the assessee, the Hon’ble ITAT has failed to take note of the decision of Hon’ble M.A No.14/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 255 (SC) and the order of Hon’ble ITAT, Chennai in the case of M/s. M/s. Heylands Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA No.1539/Chny/2024 and therefore, the order deserves to be revoked, reviewed and rectified u/s. 254 of the Act. 3. The Ld. PCIT has passed order u/s. 263 of the Act holding the order passed by the A.O allowing the claim of employees contribution in PF & ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 55,69,332 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of Ld PCIT . The Bench decided the appeal as under: “5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. PCIT has held the order u/s. 147 of the Act passed by A.O erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the A.O has not made the disallowance of employees’ contribution of PF & ESI u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Explanation 2(d) to Section 263 of the Act clearly stipulates that if the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of assessee or another person such order shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Electrical India vs. ADIT, supra, has clarified that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, supra, would relate back to the date of consequential amendment brought in by legislature in respect of the provisions of the Act and it was to be presumed that legal position always like that i.e., both the contributions were to be treated differently since the inception and the contribution was always subjected to the records of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In view of the above, we M.A No.14/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. PCIT. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. AR has argued that the Hon’ble Bench has not considered the decisions of CIT vs. GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd (supra ) and M/s. M/s. Heylands Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra ) relied upon by the assessee while deciding the appeal. We find that , the Hon’ble bench, in paragraph 3 of its order has noted the assessee’s contention that at the time of passing the reassessment order, there were various judicial pronouncements allowing such claims therefore, the order cannot be said as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Hon’ble bench has passed the order after considering the decisions relied by the Ld AR. Therefore, we do not find any mistake apparent from record in the order passed. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. in TCA No.156 of 2006 dated 21.08.2007, has held as under: “The Tribunal has no power to review its order. When the Tribunal has already decided an issue by applying its mind against the assessee, the same cannot be rectified u/s. 254(2) of the Act. There was no necessity whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to review its own order. Even after examination of the judgment of the Tribunal we could not find a single reason in the whole order as to how the Tribunal is justify and for what reasons. There is no apparent error on the face of the record and thereby, the Tribunal sat as an appellate authority over its own order. It is completely M.A No.14/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: impermissible and the Tribunal has transferred out of its jurisdiction to allow a Miscellaneous Petition in the name of reviewing its own order.” In view of the above, the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed. 4. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 01st April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (यस यस िव\u001bने रिव) (SS Viswanethra Ravi) \u0001याियक \u0001याियक \u0001याियक \u0001याियक सद\bय सद\bय सद\bय सद\bय / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 01st April, 2025. EDN/- आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF "