DCIT, BIKANER V. M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., HANUMANGARH JUNCTION

MA 53/JODH/2017

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-2, Bikaner, as the appellant, and M/s Hanumangarh Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd., as the respondent. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification of a Tribunal order that had granted relief to the assessee based on a prior, allegedly flawed, Tribunal order. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had erroneously treated a separate legal entity as the same assessee, leading to a mistaken application of facts and issues. The Tribunal, however, found that the Revenue's failure to timely pursue rectification of the earlier order and the procedural lapses in seeking correction barred any relief in the current proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398041 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 453 ITR 51 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARNI DAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Procedural lapse

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM &DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM Miscellaneous Application No. 52 & 53/JODH/2017 In आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 55 & 56/JODH/2015 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The DCIT Circle-2, Bikaner बनाम M/s Hanumangarh Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd. Opp. Circuit House, Hanumangarh ˕ायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAAJH0302C अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱ ओर से/Assessee by : None राज᭭व कᳱ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. DR) सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/05/2025 उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 02/06/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: These Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by the Revenue under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of the consolidated order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 55 & 56/Jodh/2015 for the assessment years 2010–11 and 2011–12. 2. The Ld. DR submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from an apparent error on the face of the record. It was pointed out that while granting relief to the assessee, the Tribunal had relied upon its earlier order dated 24.09.2014 passed in ITA No. 341/Jodh/2013 for A.Y. 2009–10, in the assessee’s own case. 2.1 The Revenue contended that in the said earlier order, the Tribunal had erroneously treated M/s Hanumangarh Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., a separate legal entity, as being the same assessee. Consequently, it wrongly held that the facts and issues in both cases were identical, and on that basis, relief was allowed. 2.2 It was submitted that this factual mistake vitiated the entire finding, and that the CIT(A), while allowing relief for A.Ys. 2010–11 and 2011–12, had solely relied on the said 2 flawed order. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s confirmation of the CIT(A)’s decision also stood vitiated. 2.3 The Revenue informed that it had already filed a Miscellaneous Application on 06.05.2015 seeking rectification of the earlier order dated 24.09.2014 (for A.Y. 2009–10), which was pending. In this backdrop, the Revenue urged that the Tribunal rectify the subsequent orders for A.Ys. 2010–11 and 2011–12 to prevent perpetuation of an apparent mistake. 3. Since none is present on behalf of the assessee therefore we have left no option but to proceed with the matter. 4. We have carefully considered the contentions of the Revenue and perused the record. The impugned order of the Tribunal is dated 14.03.2016, and the present MAs were filed on 07.06.2016. In the present case, the only grievance of the Revenue is that the assessee was granted relief based on a prior Tribunal order dated 24.09.2014, which itself was under challenge through an MA filed on 06.05.2015. However, the Revenue failed to pursue or secure a rectification of the earlier order in time. Admittedly, the application filed for the A.Y. 2009-10 was filed beyond the period of six months and is barred by limitation and therefore, in our humble understanding no relief can be granted based on the belated application filed in respect of the earlier assessment year. The delay and procedural lapses in seeking correction of the earlier order cannot be a ground to re-agitate the matter in subsequent proceedings after the limitation has expired. 4.1 Even assuming that the earlier MA remains pending, that cannot be a reason for rectification of order unless a mistake apparent from the record is pointed out by the Ld. DR. For the above said purposes we may rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 453 ITR 51 (SC) 4.2 Respectfully following the above decision, we hold that there is no apparent mistake in the Tribunal’s order warranting rectification under Section 254(2). 3 4.3 In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the present Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are not maintainable and accordingly required to be dismissed. 5. In the result, both the above Misc. Applications are dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/06/2025) Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AG Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "