ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1), RAIPUR V. BALBIR SINGH, RAIPUR

MA 13/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a miscellaneous application filed by the revenue against an earlier Tribunal decision which quashed the reassessment order for the assessment year 2012-13. The original reassessment was contested due to the alleged non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a procedural requirement for reassessment. The Tribunal had previously found that no such notice was issued, leading to the quashing of the reassessment order. In the miscellaneous application, the revenue argued that the notice was indeed issued, as evidenced by its presence in the income tax portal, although it was not on record during the initial proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that the scope of section 254(2) does not extend to reviewing the decision based on new arguments or evidence that could have been presented earlier.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711454 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT & Anr Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC), CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khendelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC), T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company 203 ITR 497 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.13/RPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.65/RPR/2024) Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. Balbir Singh A-8, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN: AJJPS3974G ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No. 13/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The captioned Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the revenue arising out of ITA No.65/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2012-13 u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The revenue by filing the present miscellaneous application has raised following grounds: “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in quashing the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee on 27.12.2017 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, for non issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act ignoring the fact that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been issued in this case on 16.10.2017? 2. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing.” 3. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that at the time of original hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal had adjudicated the appeal on the facts that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not there on record before completion of the reassessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that now the A.O has found the said notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act in the income tax portal, but nothing is apparent whether such notice was at all even at a later date was served or not. Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No. 13/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the order of the Tribunal is well reasoned and the same does not call for any interference. 5. We have heard the submissions of the parties herein and perused the material available on record. We are of the view that the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No.65/RPR/2024 09.10.2024 had allowed the appeal of the assessee after examining the facts and circumstances and therein the Tribunal had observed that no such notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee and therefore, the reassessment order was quashed. For the sake of completeness, relevant Paras 21 & 22 are culled out as follows: “21. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view, that as in the present case before us, neither is any material discernible from the record which would dislodge the Ld. AR’s claim that no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued by the A.O nor any material proving to the contrary had been placed on record by the Ld. DR, therefore, the assessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 27.12.2017 in absence of a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act having been issued by him cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 22. As we have quashed the assessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 27.12.2017, therefore, we refrain from adverting to the other contentions that have been raised by the Ld. AR as regards the merits of the case which, thus, are left open.” Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No. 13/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 6. We are of the considered view that the revenue had failed to point out any mistake apparent from the record in the aforestated order of the Tribunal and in the garb of the present miscellaneous application, it is seeking review of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.65/RPR/2024, dated 09.10.2024, which is beyond the scope of jurisdiction as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal in its own wisdom relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of ACIT & Anr Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) and CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khendelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) along with plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts. The Ld. Sr. DR failed to point out any mistake which is apparent, obvious, patent and glaring. There are series of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court expounding scope of exercising powers under section 254(2) of the Act. I do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No. 13/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 7. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: \" ....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record........\" Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it was held as under: \"From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No. 13/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that\" 8. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company reported as 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) has held that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record itself and not rectification in error of judgment. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under: “The Tribunal cannot, in exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from the record itself.” 9. The Tribunal while passing order was therefore, functus officio and once completion is arrived at and there is no mistake apparent from record, accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue u/s.254(2) of the Act is dismissed as devoid and bereft of any merit. 10. In the result, miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 25th July, 2025. Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA No. 13/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ /The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Printed from counselvise.com "