GEODATE ENGINEERING S.P.A.,NEW DELHI V. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

MA 369/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Geodate Engineering SPA, the appellant, seeking a recall of the ITAT's order dated 20.06.2024, which had allowed their appeal for statistical purposes but did not consider the Additional Paper Book filed by the assessee. The assessee argued that the order contained mistakes of law and fact, particularly noting that incorrect facts from another case were applied to theirs, and that their submissions were not adequately considered. The Tribunal acknowledged these oversights and decided to recall the previous order, scheduling a new hearing to address the issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777265 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2025
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Champalal Chopra vs. State of Rajasthan
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SINGH SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL AGGARWAL; .; SAHILESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “Friday-D”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 369/DEL/2024 (IN ITA NO. 8770/DEL/2019) A.YR. 2016-17 GEODATE ENGINEERING SPA, vs. ACIT, Circle Intl Tax 1(3)(1), 206A, 2ND FLOOR NDM-1 BUILDING, New Delhi NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, B-45, INDER PURI, DELHI – 110 008 (PAN: AARPS2666K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Sahilesh Gupta, Adv. Department by : Sh. Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 19.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: By way of this Miscellaneous Application assessee seeks recall of the order dated 20.06.2024 of this Tribunal passed in Assessee’s I.T.A. No. 8770/Del/2019 for AY 2016-17. Printed from counselvise.com 2 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the Tribunal vide its order dated 20.06.2024 has allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. He further submitted that the said order was passed without taking into consideration the Additional Paper Book filed by the Assessee. It was further submitted that while allowing and disposing off the said appeal, mistakes of law as well as of facts have been crept in the said order of the Tribunal and therefore, the assessee/applicant prays that, such mistakes which are apparent from record may kindly be rectified and order may be suitably either amended or modified or recalled. For the sake of convenience, the contents of the Misc. Application are reproduced as under:- “1. The captioned appeal filed by the applicant-assessee/appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes by the Hon'ble ITAT's Order dated 20.06.2024, received on 25.06.2024 (copy of the Order enclosed as Annexure - A). The assessee/applicant respectfully submits that, while allowing and disposing off the aforesaid appeal, mistakes of law as well as of facts have crept in the order and, therefore the assessee/applicant prays that, such mistakes which are apparent from record may kindly be rectified and, order made be suitably either amended or modified or recalled. It is submitted that, mistakes apparent are such which go to the root of the matter and, are manifest in the order; hence the aforesaid prayer is being made. Printed from counselvise.com 3 2. This above stated captioned appeal was heard and remanded back to file of DRP to be decided afresh vide ITAT's Order dt. 20.06.2024. It is also being submitted that on the date of hearing the learned senior counsel Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, was not allowed to argue further by the Hon'ble bench, as the Hon'ble Bench was in line with assessee's arguments/grounds of appeal and thus was in favor of the assessec/appellant-applicant but still the matter was remanded back to the file of DRP based on noting of wrong facts which crept in the order of ITAT dt. 20.06.2024. This contention of the applicant-assessee/appellant is being supported and backed by affidavit's of the counsel's representing the assessee/appellant- applicant (copy of the affidavit's enclosed as Annexure - B) 3. The applicant-appellant/assessee at the outset submits that there has been an inadvertent factual error' as is evident from reading of Para 6 of the Hon'ble ITAT's Order dt. 20.06.2024 wherein the ITAT has recorded factually incorrect, totally wrong facts of another matter not pertaining to applicant- assessee/appellant's case at all. The relevant para 6 is being extracted herein for your lordships ready reference and perusal: \"Before us at the outset Ld. DR supported the order and submitted that the assessee company has been described as professional which used to charge fees for providing software training to Raya Contact Centre Egypt but no details of software training has been mentioned in the Printed from counselvise.com 4 work order dated 01-09-2012. He has further submitted that paper work has been fabricated to avoid the tax. Therefore, he submitted that the Order of CIT(a) be up- held.\" 3.1 Thus it can be seen that the Hon'ble ITAT while allowing the appeal of the assessee-appellant/applicant has mistakenly directed the DRP to decide the matter afresh even after being in line with assessee's arguments/grounds of appeal based on noting of wrong, factually incorrect facts not pertaining to assessee/appellant-applicant's case at all. 4. It is also being submitted that applicant-assesse/appellant's 'brief synopsis' and \"additional paper book\" which was furnished during the course of hearing to the bench was not taken into consideration at all as the impugned order is vague and does not encapsulate and does not take into consideration the relevant facts which go to the root of the issue i.e. the relevant facts as mentioned in the brief synopsis are not coming out from the order of ITAT (copy of the brief synopsis along with additional paper book furnished before Hon'ble ITAT 5. It is to be further submitted that the Hon'ble ITAT vide Order dt. 20.06.2024, in Para 8 of the Order has recorded another incorrect fact that \"if the AR sought time to produce the details or documents then one opportunity should have been given to him. In passing the impugned order, the rule of natural justice has not been followed by DRP. He should have decided the Printed from counselvise.com 5 matter after giving one more opportunity to the assessee for filing relevant documents.\" 5.1 It is to be submitted that this recording of fact by the ITAT in Para 8 of it's order is factually incorrect as the relevant evidence was already furnished before the DRP and was also filed before the ITAT during course of hearing and also a detailed synopsis was submitted to this affect which encapsulated all the relevant facts, therefore question of opportunity being granted does not arise at all as documents and evidences were already furnished by Applicant- Assessee/Appellant both before DRP and also before the ITAT during course of hearing. 5.2 It is also to be submitted that from reading paper book - 1 (pg 192 at SNo. 10 which is the written submission filed before DRP on 17.06.2019) furnished before ITAT during course of hearing it can be inferred that the relevant evidence was furnished before DRP on 17.12.2019 and also these facts were mentioned while arguing the case but the order passed by ITAT is vague missing all the important, relevant facts which were pointed out during the course of hearing. 6. It is further to be submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Champalal Chopra vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 257 ITR 74 has further observed that. \"A reading of sub- section (2) of Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that its scope and ambit is limited. It restricts the power of Printed from counselvise.com 6 the Appellate Tribunal to rectify mistakes apparent from the record. In the normal course, the power of rectification cannot be extended to recalling the entire order, because obviously it would mean passing a fresh order. This is not the legislative intent. However, in a given case where the factual mistake is so apparent that it becomes necessary to correct the same, the Tribunal would be justified in not only correcting the said mistake by way of rectification but if the judgment has proceeded on the basis of that fact, it would be justified in recalling such order\" 7. PRAYER: The applicant, therefore, in terms of the instant application u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act seeks 'recalling' of the Order dated 20.06.2024 because of factually wrong facts being mentioned in the order which are apparent from the record and on the face of it and in the light of the submissions made here-in-above, also an opportunity of being heard is prayed for.” 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as above contents of the instant Misc. Application, which have also been reiterated by the Ld. AR for the Assessee during the hearing before us and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to recall the Tribunal’s order dated 20.06.2024 passed in ITA No. 8770/Del/2019 (AY 2016-17) in the case of the assessee. We hold and direct Printed from counselvise.com 7 accordingly. Therefore, the Registry is directed to fix the appeal for fresh hearing on 12.11.2025, a date consented by both the parties. 4. In the result, the Misc. Application filed by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [S. RIFAUR RAHMAN] [SUDHIR KUMAR] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SR BHATNAGGAR Date: 22.09.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "