Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 27171 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
28-03-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB-B
Assessment Year
2020-2021
Judgement Text
" MA No 14 of 2025 Broadridge Financial Solutions India P Ltd Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member MA No.14/Hyd/2025 (आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.886/Hyd/2024) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Broadridge Financial Solutions (India) (P) Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AADCB0321R Vs. Dy. CIT Circle 1(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: C.A Srilalitha राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 28/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/03/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking rectification of mistake in the order dated 19/02/2025 of this Tribunal in ITA No.886/Hyd/2024. 2. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the Tribunal has clubbed together Ground Nos. 22 to 29 and disposed MA No 14 of 2025 Broadridge Financial Solutions India P Ltd Page 2 of 6 of all these grounds by deciding only one issue regarding the addition made by the CPC in respect of delayed payment of Employee’s Contribution to PF & ESI. The learned AR has referred to para 12 and 13 of the impugned order and submitted that the Tribunal has decided only one issue by mistakenly clubbing Ground Nos. 22 to 29, whereas only Ground Nos. 28 & 29 are in respect of the issue of addition made on account of delayed payment towards Employees contribution towards PF & ESI. The learned AR has further submitted that during the course of hearing, Ground Nos. 22 to 26 were not pressed by the assessee and therefore, these 5 grounds are not related to the said issue of delayed payment towards employees contribution to PF & ESI and liable to be dismissed as not pressed. The learned AR has further pointed out that Ground No.27 is altogether a different issue in respect of double disallowance on account of amortization of right of used assets which has not been adjudicated by this Tribunal. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that there is an apparent mistake in the impugned order of the Tribunal so far as the issue involved in Ground No.27 has not been adjudicated. She has pointed out that the disallowance made by the CPC on this account is a double addition as the assessee has suo motto disallowed this amount in the return of income in Schedule-BP – computation of income from business or profession, at S.No.11. Therefore, it is apparent from record that there is a double addition on this account. The learned AR has also referred to Schedule 21A of the P&L Account and Balance Sheet at Page MA No 14 of 2025 Broadridge Financial Solutions India P Ltd Page 3 of 6 No.729 of the paper book and submitted that the depreciation and amortization expenses total amounting to Rs.58.09 crores has been disallowed suo motto which includes the amortization of used assets. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the M.A and submitted that the tribunal has decided Grounds 22 to 29 in Para 12 and 13 of the impugned order and therefore, it is not an apparent mistake from the record to be rectified as per provisions of section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vrundavan Ginning and Oil Mill vs. Asstt. Registrar/President reported in (2021) 434 ITR 583 (Guj.) and submitted that the power to rectify the mistake does not cover the cases where the revision of order is intended. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that once the Tribunal has decided Grounds 22 to 29, then the M.A filed by the assessee is not maintainable. 4. We have considered the rival submission as well as the relevant material available on record. There is no quarrel on the point that the power to rectify the mistake as per section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is very limited and circumscribed mainly to correct the mistake apparent from record and does not include the error of law or re-appreciation of factual finding. In the case in hand, the assessee has raised various grounds out of which MA No 14 of 2025 Broadridge Financial Solutions India P Ltd Page 4 of 6 Ground No.22 to 29 have been disposed of by this Tribunal vide the impugned order in Para 12 and 13 as under: “12. Ground Nos.22 to 29 are regarding the disallowance made by the CPC while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of delayed payment of Employees’ Contribution to PF and ESI. 13. We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR and perused the material available on record. The assessee has not disputed the fact that there was a delay in making the payment towards employees’ contribution to PF & ESI and therefore, this issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2022) 448 ITR 518. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 22 to 29 raised by the assessee are dismissed.” 5. Thus, the Tribunal decided Ground Nos. 22 to 29 on the premise that only one issue regarding the addition on account of delayed payments towards employees contribution to PF & ESI is raised in these grounds which is now covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd vs. CIT. However, it is apparent that Ground No.27 involves the issue of addition/adjustment made by the CPC on account of amortization of the assets under ICDS-V. For ready reference, Ground No.27 is reproduced as under: “27. Without prejudice to grounds 22-26 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and contrary to law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in making adjustment amounting to INR 21,97,42,076 to the returned income on account of alleged deviation in the amount disclosed under ‘ICDS-V Tangible Fixed Assets’ as reported in clause 13(e) of the TAR vis-à-vis the ROI without giving cognizance to the fact that the same was disallowed by the appellant in schedule BP MA No 14 of 2025 Broadridge Financial Solutions India P Ltd Page 5 of 6 of the ITR and there is no inconsistency in the TAR vis-à-vis the ITR and the said adjustment shall result in double disallowance of the same amount.” 6. Thus, it is apparent from record that in Ground No.27, the assessee raised an altogether separate and distinct issue of disallowance of amortization of right of used assets which the assessee has claimed that it has suo motto disallowed the same in the ITR as S.No.11 of Schedule BP. Prima facie, it appears that the assessee has disallowed the entire amount of Rs.58.09 crores including the amount of Rs.21.97 crores on this account of ICDS. Therefore, we find that non-adjudication of Ground No.27 and particularly, the issue involved in Ground No.27 of the assessee’s appeal constitute an apparent mistake from record of the impugned order. Further, during the course of hearing, the assessee did not press Ground No.22 to 26 which is also not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The decision relied upon by the learned DR in case of Vrundavan Ginning and Oil Mill vs. Asstt. Registrar/President (Supra) would not help the stand of the learned DR when there is an apparent error from record on account of non-adjudication of a particular ground/issue. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we recall the impugned order for limited purpose of hearing and adjudication of Ground No.27 of assessee’s appeal as well as disposing of Ground No.22 to 26 being not pressed by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is directed to be fixed for hearing and adjudication of Ground No.27 as well as dispose of Ground Nos. 22 to 26 being MA No 14 of 2025 Broadridge Financial Solutions India P Ltd Page 6 of 6 not pressed on 17th April, 2025. The next date of hearing is announced in the Open Court and noted by both the parties, hence no separate notice of hearing shall be issued. 7. In the result, appeal M.A. by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on conclusion of the hearing i.e. on 28th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 28th March, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Broadridge Financial Solutions (India) Private Limited, Survey No.64, Adjacent to Cyber Towers, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500081 2 Dy. CIT, Circle 1(1) IT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-28 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "
AI Insights
The case involves Broadridge Financial Solutions (India) Pvt Ltd, which filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of a mistake in a previous Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2020-21. The Tribunal had initially clubbed several grounds of appeal together, leading to the oversight of specific issues, particularly Ground No. 27, which dealt with the double disallowance of amortization of used assets. The assessee argued that this ground was not addressed in the Tribunal's earlier decision, despite the fact that they had already disallowed the amount in question in their return of income. The Departmental Representative opposed the MA, citing that the Tribunal had already decided on the grouped grounds. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and recalled the order to specifically address the unadjudicated ground and to confirm the non-pressing of other grounds.
