DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI V. TPG CAPITAL INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

MA 124/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai as the applicant and TPG Capital India Pvt Ltd as the respondent. The revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking recall of an earlier order on the grounds that certain issues were not adjudicated. These issues pertained to the inclusion of Pipal Research Analysis & Information Services India Pvt. Ltd (PRAISIPL) as a comparable for transfer pricing purposes and the handling of related party transactions (RPT) and trade advances. The Tribunal found the application to be belated by 98 days and thus not maintainable under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, which allows for rectification of apparent mistakes within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780272 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Leena Power Tech Engineers (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Karuturi Global Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, Ram Baburao Salve
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PORUS KAKA VIRTUALLY APPEAR; LEYAQAT ALI AAFAQUI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.124/Mum/2025 (Arising out of I.T.A No.3283/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs TPG Capital India Pvt Ltd, 1004, The Capital, Plot No.C-70, G- Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 PAN : AABCN6660K APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Porus Kaka (Virtually appear) Respondent by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR. DR) Date of hearing : 12/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 08/10/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): This miscellaneous application filed revenue seeks recall of the order dated 02/07/2024 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 3283/Mum/2024 on the ground that the bench has not decided the following grounds raised in the appeal:- “3.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) is correct in directing the AO/TPO to include Pipal Research Analysis & Information Services India Pvt. Ltd (PRAISIPL) as a comparable, by totally Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.124 /Mum/2025 TPG Capital India P Ltd disregarding and without adjudicating on functional dissimilarities pointed out by TPO of this company for comparability purpose? 3.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in lave, the L4. CITA) is correct in including PRAISIPL as comparable, though RPT is more than 40%? 3.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) is correct in excluding the trade advances in working out RPT ratio? 4.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not giving his decision in accordance with provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and instead directing the AO/TPO to conduct fresh inquiries to gather information of segmental profits from Motilal Oswal Private Equity Advisors Pvt. Ltd independently for fresh adjudication on the matter of including this entity as a comparable? 4.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not deciding the case by passing a speaking order, but virtually setting aside the matter to the TPO/AO though such powers of set aside do not remain with CIT(A) w.e.f. 1.6.20017. 4.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITA) is correct in setting aside so, when he has powers u/s 250(4) r.w.rule 46A to call for remand report from the AO/TPO and to pass a speaking order based on such remand report?” 2. The registry has notified to the Bench that the miscellaneous application filed the revenue is belated by 98 days. Further, we find that the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act states as below:- “(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer:” Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.124 /Mum/2025 TPG Capital India P Ltd 3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. As per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal can rectify any apparent mistake within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. Accordingly, we find that the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is barred by limitation and, therefore, not maintainable. The Ld. DR has also not placed on record any judicial precedent or ruling to support the condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous application. The issue is dealt by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Leena Power Tech Engineers (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 172 taxmann.com 424 (Bombay), held that: - “16. Given the above position, sufficient cause, if any, would be irrelevant. The ITAT has also not gone into the issue of sufficient cause but by relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court Karuturi Global Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2020] 116 taxmann.com 924 (Karnataka) held that it has no power to condone the delay in entertaining an application under Section 254(2) of the IT Act. 17. Since the ITAT's view aligns with that of our coordinate bench in Ram Baburao Salve (supra) and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Re. Karuturi Global Ltd. (supra), we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order.” In the present case, the revenue has contended that certain grounds were not adjudicated in the original order. However, on perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we observe that at ground no. 7, the Bench has already discussed in detail the arguments advanced by the Ld. DR. In view of the above & respectfully following the order of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the miscellaneous application is dismissed being barred by limitation. Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.124 /Mum/2025 TPG Capital India P Ltd 4. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/10/ 2025 Sd/- sd/- (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 08/10/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 5. गाड\u0019 फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI Printed from counselvise.com "