AI Insights
The case involves Dhanashri Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., which filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to recall an earlier Tribunal order that allegedly contained a mistake apparent from the record. The mistake pertained to the misidentification of the nature of the appeal, which was recorded as a Revenue's appeal rather than the assessee's. The Tribunal had initially upheld the NFAC's decision to delete certain disallowances but incorrectly labeled the decision as dismissing a Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged the error and decided to recall the order, providing an opportunity for a fresh hearing.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28925 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
18-03-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHREE DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER धिधिि आिेदन सं. / MA No.70/PUN/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.268/PUN/2024) धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dhanashri Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Damaji Road, Mangal Vedha, Dist.-Solapur-413305 PAN : AABAD1879N Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Pandharpur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Department by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 07-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18-03-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : By this Miscellaneous Application the assessee seeks to recall the order of the Tribunal dated 27.05.2024 in ITA No.268/PUN/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21 alleging that a mistake apparent from the record has crept into the aforesaid order that calls for rectification under the provisions of section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on the ground that the observation made by the Tribunal in paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 thereof that “We adopt judicial consistency to uphold the learned NFAC’s action of deleting the impugned disallowance(s) in very terms” and “This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms” respectively, is not correct. 2. The Ld. AR submitted the Tribunal in the aforesaid order has wrongly decided the assessee’s appeal as the appeal filed by the Revenue and therefore requested that the order of the Tribunal may be recalled for fresh adjudication on merits of the assessee’s case. He reiterated the submissions made in the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee, which reads as under: 2 MA No. 70/PUN/2024, AY 2020-21 “In para 3 of the said order Hon'ble Bench has observed as follows: \"We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue's above extracted pleadings seeking to revive Assessing Officer's action disallowing assessee's sec. 80P deduction claim(s) of Rs. 4,35,10,380/- as deleted in the NFAC's lower appellate discussion. Suffice to say, both the learned representatives vehemently reiterated their respective stands in favour and against the impugned disallowance representing interest income derived from various cooperative societies/banks and similar other institutions. Learned counsel at this stage referred to the tribunal's order in assessee's twin appeals I.T.A. Nos. 266 & 267/PUN. /2024 dated 21.03.2024 in preceding assessment years 2016-2017 and 2018-2019; respectively, rejecting the Revenue's very stand regarding sec. 80P deduction claim(s). The Revenue is fair enough in not pinpointing any specific distinction during the course of hearing in all these assessment years so far as the relevant facts are concerned. That being the case, we adopt judicial consistency to uphold the learned NFAC's action deleting the impugned disallowance(s) in very terms. Ordered accordingly.\" Perusal of this para, reveals the fact that in principle Hon'ble ITAT allowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) by following assessee's own twin appeals in ITA No. 266 & 267/PUN/2024 and since ground 1 as mentioned above is allowed assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). However, in the above referred para 3 in last four lines it was incorrectly observed that: \"We adopt judicial consistency to uphold the learned NFAC's action deleting the impugned disallowance(s) in very terms. Ordered accordingly.\" This observation is inconsistent with the findings of NFAC as mentioned in para 7.5 to 7.11 of order u/s 250 dated 14/12/2023, wherein, such deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was decided against the appellant, however deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) was allowed and directions were given to verify the claim of expenditure u/s.57. Further in para 4, Hon'ble Bench has observed that: \"This Revenue's appeal is dismissed in above terms.\" The observation is also incorrect as this is an assessee's appeal and same is allowed in para 3 as reproduced above, so further order may kindly be rectified accordingly. In view of this we most humbly submit that this being an apparent error and to that extent order may be recalled and corrected. 3. The Ld. DR fairly conceded with the above submission and request of the Ld. AR. 4. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on records as well as the impugned order of the Tribunal. We find that the above claim of the assessee is correct. The Tribunal has inadvertently decided the appeal of the assessee as Revenue’s appeal. Perusal of para 3 of the said order (reproduced above) reveals that although the Tribunal has given reasoning on the impugned issue involved therein relating to the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(i)(a)/ 80P(2)(d) of the Act favourable to the assessee, it went on decide the appeal as the appeal of the Revenue and dismissed the same. In this view of the 3 MA No. 70/PUN/2024, AY 2020-21 matter, we deem it fit, to recall the order of the Tribunal by giving an opportunity of fresh hearing to the assessee to present and substantiate its case. Accordingly, the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.268/PUN/2024 is hereby recalled and the registry is directed to fix the aforesaid appeal for hearing in due course before the regular Bench. The fresh date of hearing shall be informed to both the parties by issue of notice of hearing by the registry. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Dipak P. Ripote) (Astha Chandra) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 18th March, 2025. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ दनजी सदचि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune "
Mehul