DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(2)(2), MUMBAI V. SODEXO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

MA 35/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Revenue seeking a recall/rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order regarding the determination of the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the assessee's food service division and the computation of net worth. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred by directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to adopt a specific net worth figure, which they contended foreclosed the AO's statutory right to examine the computation's veracity. The Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that it lacked the power to review its findings and that the application was within the statutory timelines.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833398 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Income-tax Rules
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MRUNAL PARIKH
• Keywords: Fair market value; Period of limitation; Capital Gains; Rectification of order; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA No.35/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.2945/MUM/2022) Assessment Years: 2012 -13 The DY. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 13(2)(2), Room No.452, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. Vs. M/s. Sodexo Facilities Management Services India Ltd. 1st Floor, Gemster Commercial Complex, Ramchandra Lane Extension, Kanchpada, Malad West, Mumbai – 400064. PAN NO. AABCS 4166 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mrunal Parikh Department by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12/12/2025 Date of pronouncement : 03/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue is seeking recall/rectification of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the ‘Tribunal’) dated 25.05.2023 passed in ITA No.2945/MUM/2022 for Assessment year 2012- 13. 2. The Learned Departmental Representative (“LDR”), appearing on behalf of the Revenue, seeks a recall of the Printed from counselvise.com The DY. Commissioner of Income Tax 2 MA No. 35/MUM/2024 Tribunal’s earlier order. It is submitted that while the Tribunal in impugned order remanded the determination of the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the assessee's food service division and the computation of net worth to the Assessing Officer (“AO”), but the Tribunal erred in its directions. 3. The Revenue’s grievance is two-fold: (i) Procedural Non-compliance: The LDR emphasized that the assessee failed to furnish Form No. 3CEA as mandated by Section 50B(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6H of the Income-tax Rules. (ii) Restriction of AO's Jurisdiction: It is contended that by directing the AO to adopt a specific net worth figure ($Rs. 1,50,04,578/-$), the Tribunal effectively foreclosed the AO's statutory right to examine the veracity of the computation. The Revenue argues that such \"attribution of finality\" at the remand stage is erroneous, and the entire issue of capital gains from the slump sale ought to have been restored to the AO for a de novo adjudication in accordance with the law. 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant on record. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application (“MA”), asserting it was barred by limitation. Printed from counselvise.com The DY. Commissioner of Income Tax 3 MA No. 35/MUM/2024 5. Upon a careful scrutiny of the record, we find that the Tribunal’s order dated May 25, 2023, was received by the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–05, Mumbai, on August 21, 2023. A certificate in this regard has been given in the Miscellaneous Application . Consequently, the limitation period for filing the MA was to expire on February 29, 2024. Given that the present application was preferred on February 13, 2024, it is well within the prescribed statutory timelines. The assessee’s preliminary objection is, therefore, dismissed. 6. The Revenue, through this application, essentially seeks a total recall of the matter to allow the AO a fresh opportunity to examine the entire slump sale transaction. However, the power of this Tribunal under the Act is confined to the rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. 7. The prayer to recall the order and restore the matter in its entirety—despite the Tribunal having already adjudicated upon the merits—amounts to a prayer for a substantive review of its own judgment. It is a settled principle of law that the Tribunal does not possess the inherent power to review its well-reasoned findings under the guise of rectification. Granting the Revenue's request would involve re-appreciating facts and altering the conclusions already reached, which is beyond the scope of a Miscellaneous Application. Printed from counselvise.com The DY. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 MA No. 35/MUM/2024 8. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 03/02/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "