GRP AUTO,DELHI V. JCIT, NEW DELHI

MA 370/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves GRP Auto, the appellant, contesting an order from the JCIT, Range-19, New Delhi, regarding the assessment year 2010-11. The primary issue was the non-consideration of crucial documents and facts by the ITAT in their previous ruling, which led to an incorrect confirmation of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee argued that the Tribunal overlooked significant evidence, including stock records and details of transactions with a related party, Swiss Devices India, which were essential to substantiate their claims and contest the additions made under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions and documents, agreed that the earlier order did not consider these critical materials, leading to the decision to recall and modify the order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714758 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Section 40A(2) of the Act, Section 80IC of the Act, Section 143(3) of the Act, Section 254(2) of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: INDU BALA SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: Y.K. KAPOOR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA 370/Del/2024 (In ITA No. 5708/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) GRP Auto, 19, Rajasthan Udhyog Nagar, GT Karnal Road, Delhi Vs. JCIT, Range-19, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAFFG6813L Assessee by : Shri Y. K. Kapoor, CA Revenue by: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 05/08/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. By virtue of this miscellaneous application, the assessee seeks to recall the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 5708/Del/2016 for AY 2010-11 dated 14.05.2024. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, it is noticed that the main grievance of the assessee is that the relevant documents in support of contentions of the assessee which, though part of the records filed before this Tribunal, were not considered by the Tribunal. The ld AR also pointed out that the assessee had made major purchase from Swiss Devices India which happens to be a related party within the meaning of Section 40A(2) of the Act. The ld AO in his Printed from counselvise.com MA 370/Del/2024 GRP Auto Page | 2 assessment order had stated that assessee had claimed excessive deduction u/s 80IC of the Act by inflating the profits. But the AO had passed the order for the related party u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12.03.2013 which order is enclosed in page 389 of the Paper Book Volume-II wherein, no adverse inference was drawn. The ld AO in page 5 of his order stated that stock records were not filed by the assessee which had enabled him to frame an addition on account of stock in the assessment. This was factually incorrect as quantitative details were indeed filed by the assessee before the ld AO which are enclosed in pages 225 to 277 of the Paper Book filed before the Tribunal at the time of main appeal hearing. All these facts and documents were not considered by the Tribunal while passing the order confirming the addition made by the ld AO in the sum of Rs. 1,08,51,505/-. The assessee had also adduced reasons for reduction in gross profits which was also not considered by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the ld AR pointed out that the observation made by the Tribunal in page 6 para 10 of the order in this regard is factually incorrect. 3. Per contra, the ld DR vehemently submitted that there was no error in the order of this Tribunal warranting any recalling or rectification thereon within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. 4. We have carefully considered the various documents that were already placed on record before this Tribunal at the time of main appeal hearing. The ld AR in the present proceedings had drawn our attention to those documents which we hold were not considered while passing the order by this Tribunal. Hence we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fairplay, to recall the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 5708/Del/2016 dated 14.05.2024 for effecting suitable modifications thereon. We are conscious of the fact that the Hon'ble Printed from counselvise.com MA 370/Del/2024 GRP Auto Page | 3 Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd reported in 440 ITR 1 had prohibited recalling the order passed by this Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act. But the said decision had not prohibited modification of the order passed by this Tribunal. Hence, we deem it fit to recall the order for effecting the modifications as apparently the various documents that were part of the record were not considered by this Tribunal. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/08/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: /08/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "