ANJALI NEERAJ HARDIKAR,PUNE V. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

MA 288/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anjali Neeraj Hardikar, the applicant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The MA was filed to rectify the Tribunal's earlier order, which had adjudicated all the grounds of appeal in a single order, considering them interconnected. The applicant contended that the grounds were distinct and involved mixed questions of law and fact, thus requiring separate adjudication. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the grounds and the cited precedents, agreed that some grounds were indeed distinct and should have been addressed separately, leading to the recall of the previous order and a directive for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838504 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar (2014) 52 taxmann.com 399
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 288/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 2704/MUM/2024, A.Y.2011-12) Anjali Neeraj Hardikar E/3 Vibhawari Apartments, Sahwas Society, Lane No 1, Karve Nagar, Pune - 411052 Vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai – 3 1901, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 PAN/GIR No. AAFPH0320K Applicant) Respondent) Applicant by Ms. Simran Dhawan Respondent by Shri Surendra Mohan (SR. DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present MA has been filed by the assessee arising out of ITA No 2704/Mum/2024, order dated 24.04.2025 requesting for rectification of the Tribunal order. 2. We have heard counsel for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and judgment cited before us. From the records we noticed that the assessee through the present application has pointed out that the assessee had raised 11 grounds in appeal bearing ITA No. 2704/M/2024 but all those Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A. No. 288 /MUM/2025 (A.Y.:2011-12 ) grounds were adjudicated by a common order, considering the same as interrelated and interconnected whereas it has been submitted that all the grounds were distinct and separate and had a mix question of law and facts therefore they ought to have decided separately. 3. We noticed that by raising all the grounds the assessee had challenged the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. All those grounds were towards challenging the initiation and ultimately passing of order under Section 263 of the Act. 4. After having gone through the grounds raised by the assessee we found that indeed some of the grounds are distinct and separate which could not have been inadvertently adjudicated specifically while passing the order, thus, in our view non adjudication concerning specific grounds which are fundamental to the matter makes out a case of mistake apparent from the face of record as has been held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar (2014) 52 taxmann.com 399. Therefore, in view of the same, we recall order dated 24.04.2025 passed in ITA No. 2704/M/2024 and direct the registry to list the matter before the regular Bench for fresh hearing. And parties be informed accordingly. 5. In the result MA filed by the assessee is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A. No. 288 /MUM/2025 (A.Y.:2011-12 ) Mumbai, Dated: 18.02.2026 RY Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "