DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU V. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

MA 26/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application by the Revenue seeking modification of a previous ITAT order, claiming that the Tribunal had not considered the written submissions of the learned Departmental Representative (DR) during the appeal decision. The Revenue argued that this oversight led to an incomplete consideration of the grounds raised in their appeal. However, the Tribunal, after reviewing the application and the original submissions, determined that there was no clear and obvious error in the original decision that could be rectified under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that a mistake apparent from the record must be clear and obvious, not requiring detailed arguments or legal interpretation, which was not the case here.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707053 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIVA PRASAD REDDY

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No. 26/Bang/2025 [In ITA No. 483/Bang/2023] Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Mangalore. Vs. Shri Suresh Kanaji, Nagappa Street, 3rd Cross PG Halli, Bangalore – 580 001. PAN – ASYPK 0245 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, AR Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The Revenue, by way of this miscellaneous application, is seeking modification of the order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 480/Bangalore/2023 dated 18.12.2024 on the ground that there is a mistake apparent from the record. 2. The Revenue submitted that in the appeal filed by it, several grounds were raised. Further, during the hearing, the learned DR filed written submission, which was not considered while deciding the appeal. Therefore, the Revenue prayed that the Tribunal should consider the ld. MA No.26/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 . DR's submissions and pass a fresh order allowing the appeal of the Revenue. 3. During the hearing, the learned DR reiterated the contents of the miscellaneous application and requested that the appeal be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is not maintainable because no specific mistake has been pointed out therein. He contended that pointing out such a mistake is necessary under section 254(2) of the Act. 5. We have heard both parties and perused the materials on record. As per section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, the ITAT is empowered to rectify any mistake that is apparent from the record. However, the scope of such rectification is limited. A mistake apparent from the record refers to an error that is clear and obvious. As such, no two views are possible about the apparent mistake. It includes errors like miscalculations, incorrect data, wrong assumptions of fact, misinterpretation of law, or misreporting of income or deductions. 5.1 Similarly, the mistakes that require detailed arguments, legal interpretation, or re-evaluation of facts and law, cannot be considered as mistakes apparent from the record. If the order was passed after considering all facts and applicable law, even if the view is debatable or an error of judgment occurred, it does not amount to a rectifiable mistake. In such cases, the appropriate remedy lies in filing an appeal before a higher forum. MA No.26/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 . 6. Coming to the present case, we have gone through the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue. We do not find any reference or even a single mention of a specific mistake that is apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order. The Revenue's main contention is that the Tribunal did not consider the ld. DR’s written submissions while deciding the appeal. However, this in-itself does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal’s order, as it stands, does not reveal any patent or obvious error that could be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. There is no evidence to suggest that any mandatory submission was ignored, nor has it been shown that non- consideration of the ld. DR’s submissions led to any factual or legal inaccuracy in the final decision. Therefore, in the absence of any specific and apparent mistake, we see no reason to interfere with the original order. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in Court on 9th day of July, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 9th July, 2025 / vms / MA No.26/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 . Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "