DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRLCE-2, LUDHIANA V. RAWALPINDI CO-OP CINEMA SOCIETY LTD, LUDHIANA

MA 115/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 115/Chd/2025) filed by the Department against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 15.01.2025, which had decided in favor of the Assessee, Rawalpindi Co-op Cinema Society Ltd., regarding the assessment year 2018-19. The Department's application was based on a Supreme Court judgment in 'PCIT vs Abhishar Buildwell Pvt Ltd.', which it claimed was similar to the issue decided by the ITAT. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, reiterating that it cannot review its decisions but can only rectify mistakes that are apparent from the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841043 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs Abhishar Buildwell Pvt Ltd., DCIT vs M/s Sportking India Ltd, Ludhiana, CIT Vs. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd., CIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., CIT Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL; WAY OF THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS SEEKING
• Assessee Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, Hon'ble VP AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, Hon'ble, AM M.A. No.115/Chd/2025 [In ITA No.552/Chd/2024] (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana बनाम/ Vs. Rawalpindi Co-op Cinema Society Ltd., Soceity Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAAAR0233K (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 10-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25- 02-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) The present Misc. Application (e-filed on 4.7.2025) arising out of common order dated 15.01.2025 in ITA Nos. 180 & 552/Chd/2024 (appeals filed by the Assessee and Cross appeal by the Revenue respectively) has been moved by the Department for assessment year 2018-19 in ITA No. 552/Chd/2024. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No. 115-Chd/2025 in ita No. 552-Chd-2024 2, During the course of hearing, the Ld. Sr. DR reiterated the contents of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Applications. Further, through this Application, the Revenue in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘PCIT vs Abhishar Buildwell Pvt Ltd.’, Civil appeal No. 6580 of 2021 dated 24.4.2023 has submitted that the issue involved in the present case, decided by the Tribunal on 15.1.2025, was a similar issue as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘PCIT vs Abhishar Buildwell’ (supra) but the Tribunal has not given any direction in the said order to AO to reopen the proceedings as per section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). It has further been submitted by the ld. DR that the order of the Tribunal was received in the office of PCIT (Central) Ld. on 6.2.2025 and thus, the limitation period of this case falls on 31.8.2025 as decided by the various High Courts. 4. In his rival submissions the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee, Shri Sudhir Sehgal submitted that the order dt. 15.01.2205 has been passed by the ITAT after considering all the facts on record as well as material available and as such there is no mistake in the order passed by the ITAT and the Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No. 115-Chd/2025 in ita No. 552-Chd-2024 Department by way of this Misc. Application is seeking review of order which is not permissible. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that the Bench in its common order dt. 15.1.2025 has given findings keeping in view various case laws that the action of the A.O. of passing order u/s 153C without referring any incriminating document relating to Assessee found during the search and the action of the ld. CIT(A) of sustaining any addition made by the A.O. without any reference to incriminating document cannot be sustained. It was held that the Departmental appeal on this issue is dismissed by deciding the technical / legal issue in favour of the Assessee and that since the issue has been decided on technical / legal issue in favour of the Assessee, the Tribunal did not find it proper to decide the Departmental Appeal (Cross appeal) on other issues. 6. Now, the revenue though this Application seeks recall of the order deciding this issue in favour of the revenue as per law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘PCIT vs Abhishar Buildwell’ (supra). Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No. 115-Chd/2025 in ita No. 552-Chd-2024 7. We find that the identical pleadings have been taken by the Revenue in M.A. Nos. 147 & 148/Chd/2019 (in ITA Nos. 490 & 491/Chd/2018) in the case of ‘DCIT vs M/s Sportking India Ltd, Ludhiana’. The Coordinate Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal while adjudicating the identical grounds in the case of ‘DCIT vs M/s Sportking India Ltd, Ludhiana’ (supra) order dated 7.1.2020 has observed as under:- “5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the A.O. passed the penalty order under section 271AAB of the Act, on 29/09/2016 while the approval was granted by the Joint Commissioner / Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range on 30/09/2016 and the order dated 22/04/2019 was passed after considering those facts on record, so there is no mistake apparent from the record for the purpose of rectification under section 254 of the Act. In the present case it appears that the Department seeks the review of the order dt. 22/04/2019 in ITA Nos. 490 & 491/Chd/2018 for the A.Ys 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. It is well settled that a mistake apparent from the record can be rectified under section 254 of the Act, however the Tribunal has no power to review its own order. 5.1 On a similar issue the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd. reported in (2007) 293 ITR 95 held as under : “Sub-section (2) of section 254 clearly empowers the Tribunal at any time within four years from the date of the order to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and amend any order passed by it under sub-section(1) and to make such amendment if a mistake is Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No. 115-Chd/2025 in ita No. 552-Chd-2024 brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal cannot review its order.” 5.2 A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in (2007) 293 ITR 132 wherein it has been held as under: “A plain reading of the provision indicates that in order to exercise the power vested in it under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has to ensure that the following factors are present: (a) The application is made within 4 years from the date of the order sought to be rectified. (b) There is a mistake apparent from the record which is brought to its notice by either the assessee or the Assessing Officer. As regards the procedure to be followed, if the amendment sought has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or increasing the liability of the assessee, the Tribunal has to give prior notice to the assessee and also allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the prerequisite for exercise of either power may be similar (a mistake apparent from the record), by its very nature the power to rectify a mistake cannot result in the recall and review of the order sought to be rectified Otherwise, what cannot be done directly by seeking a review of an order can. be achieved indirectly, by seeking a rectification of that order. This is even more significant in the light of the fact that under the Act there is no express power given to the Tribunal to review.” 5.3 Similarly in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. reported in (2007) 293 ITR Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No. 115-Chd/2025 in ita No. 552-Chd-2024 163(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: “Under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. However, it is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the prerequisite for exercise of either power may be similar (a mistake apparent from the record), by its very nature the power to rectify a mistake cannot result in the recall and review of the order sought to be rectified.” 6. We therefore by keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to cases do not see any merit in these Miscellaneous Applications of the Department, accordingly the same are dismissed.” 8. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we find no merit in the present application of the Revenue and the same are accordingly dismissed. 9. In the result, the Misc. Application filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced on 25. 2.2026. Sd/- Sd/- ( RAJPAL YADAV) (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER “आर.क े.” Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA No. 115-Chd/2025 in ita No. 552-Chd-2024 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH Printed from counselvise.com "