DY.CIT-3(1), BHOPAL V. NARMADA SWITCHGEAR PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

MA 66/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a series of appeals and applications concerning the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2013-14 against M/s Narmada Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue initially filed ITA No. 307/Ind/2020 challenging the CIT(A)'s order, which was later adjudicated by the ITAT. Subsequent to this, the Revenue filed ITA No. 290/Ind/2023, mistakenly registered as an 'ITA' instead of a 'M/A', leading to its dismissal as a duplicate appeal. The Revenue's attempt to rectify this mistake through M/A No. 53/Ind/2023 was dismissed as time-barred. The present M/A No. 66/Ind/2024 seeks to recall the ITAT's earlier order and rectify the mistake, claiming the earlier application was filed within the statutory period but incorrectly registered. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the peculiar facts of the case, dismissed the M/A, affirming that there was no apparent mistake in the original order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707226 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEEABOUTOCCURRENCEOFTHISMISTAKE; FORASSESSEEBEINGSATISFIEDWITHTHESUBMISSIONOFLD.; DID; FORASSESSEE; FORREVENUE; THOUGHDUTIFULLYRELIEDUPONTHEGROUNDSRAISEDINTHE; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD JOSHI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 6 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,इंदौरɊायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.66/Ind/2024 (Arising out of MANo.53/Ind/2023/ITA No. 307/Ind/2020) Assessment Year: 2013-14 DCIT 3(1) Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. M/s Narmada Switchgear Pvt. Ltd., Plot no.3, Industrial Estate, Govindpura, Bhopal (Revenue /Applicant) (Assessee / Respondent) PAN: AABCN0635N Assessee by Shri Vinod Joshi, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: This Misc. Applications [“M/A”] has been filed by the Revenue seeking recall of ITAT’s order dated 05.01.2024 in earlier M/A No. 53/Ind/2023 and also rectification of ITAT’s order dated 03.02.2023 in ITA No. 307/Ind/2020. 2. This case has a set of peculiar facts which require a brief elaboration at the outset. Initially, the revenue filed ITA No. 307/Ind/2020 for AY 2013- 14 assailing the order of first-appeal dated 31.08.2020 passed by CIT(A)-2, Bhopal in the matter of assessment-order dated 04.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) by M/s. Narmada Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. M.A.No.66/Ind/2024 – A.Y.2013-14 Page 2 of 6 DCIT/ACIT-3(1), Bhopal. The said appeal was heard on 09.11.2022` and disposed of by ITAT, Indore Bench vide order dated 03.02.2023. Thereafter, the revenue filed another ITA No. 290/Ind/2023 on 31.07.2023. The ITAT dismissed this ITA No. 290/Ind/2023 vide order dated 13.06.2024 treating the same as a ‘duplicate appeal’ against very same order dated 31.08.2020 of CIT(A)-2, Bhopal. In the intervening period, the revenue filed M/A No. 53/Ind/2023on 16.10.2023 in the matter of original ITA No. 307/Ind/2020but this M/A was dismissed by ITAT vide order dated 05.01.2024 as time-barred having been filed after expiry of statutory time-limit of 6 months prescribed in section 254(2). Now, the revenue has come in present M/A No. 66/Ind/2024 praying that its ITA No. 290/Ind/2023 filed on 31.07.2023 was actually an “M/A” in the matter of ITAT’s earlier order dated 03.02.2023 in ITA No. 307/Ind/2020 but due to inadvertent mistake, the option of “ITA” got selected in place of “M/A” on webportal of ITAT. Ld. DR submitted that he himself was not aware of such inadvertent mistake otherwise he could very well inform the bench during hearing of ITA No. 290/Ind/2023 and M/A No. 66/Ind/2024. He, however, drew us to the documents held on record, namely (i) the letter dated 01.05.2024 of DCIT-3(1), Bhopal, (ii) the order dated 24.10.2024 of PCIT, Bhopal u/s 254(2) and (iii) the letter dated 13.11.2024 of DCIT-3(1), Bhopal to convince us and the Ld. AR for assessee about occurrence of this mistake. He further referred Order F.No. Pr.CIT-1/BPL/Judl./ATD-17/2022-23 dated 27.07.2023 of PCIT, Bhopal by which the AO was authorized to file M/A u/s 254(2) in original ITA No. 307/Ind/2020 order dated 03.02.2023, the same order is scanned and re-produced below: M/s. Narmada Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. M.A.No.66/Ind/2024 – A.Y.2013-14 Page 3 of 6 M/s. Narmada Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. M.A.No.66/Ind/2024 – A.Y.2013-14 Page 4 of 6 2.1 Thus, Ld. DR successfully demonstrated that the revenue attempted to file M/A on 31.07.2023 within the statutory period of 6 months of ITAT’s initial order dated 03.02.2023 but by mistake the same got registered as “ITA No. 290/Ind/2023” [which ultimately got dismissed as a ‘duplicate appeal’ by ITAT]. Ld. DR submitted, while expressing regret for all intermediary happenings, prayed that the revenue’s present M/A No. 66/Ind/2024 must be treated as having been filed on 31.07.2023 i.e. the M/s. Narmada Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. M.A.No.66/Ind/2024 – A.Y.2013-14 Page 5 of 6 day on which ITA No. 290/Ind/2023 was filed and accordingly treated as having been filed in time and adjudicated. 2.2 Ld. AR for assessee being satisfied with the submission of Ld. DR, did not have objection. Accordingly, considering the peculiar facts of case, the present M/A is accepted as a valid application and taken up for adjudication on merit. 3. We have heard the learned representatives of both sides on the grounds raised by revenue in this application. The grounds are same as embodied in the authorization letter F.No. Pr.CIT-1/BPL/Judl./ATD- 17/2022-23 dated 27.07.2023 of PCIT, Bhopal (already re-produced by us in earlier para). Hence, we do not wish to re-produce the same to avoid repetition. 4. On consideration of Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by revenue, we could hardly find any ‘apparent mistake’ being pointed out by revenue/applicant in the order of ITAT. In fact, in all four grounds, the revenue is claiming that the ITAT ought to have remanded matter back to AO to meet the fair end of justice rather than pointing out any ‘apparent mistake’. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the ITAT has already passed a meritorious order and given its well-reasoned adjudication after due consideration of the arguments of both sides. There may be an ‘error of decision’ on the part of ITAT but certainly there is no ‘apparent mistake’ which can give rise to rectification u/s 254(2). We find a strong merit in these submissions of Ld. AR. The Ld. M/s. Narmada Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. M.A.No.66/Ind/2024 – A.Y.2013-14 Page 6 of 6 DR for revenue, though dutifully relied upon the grounds raised in the application, but could not convince us as to how there is any ‘apparent mistake’ in the impugned order. Needless to mention that the scope and ambit of section 254(2) is very limited i.e. it only permits rectification of apparent mistake but certainly does not allow review of order so as to change earlier decision. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this M/A filed by revenue; the same is hereby dismissed. 5. Resultantly, this M/A is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 07.07..2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "