GUJARAT STATE AVIATION INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WAD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

MA 106/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Gujarat State Aviation Infrastructure Co. Ltd., which filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of a previous Tribunal order concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention was that the Assessing Officer did not properly implement the Tribunal's earlier directions to re-examine the assessee's claims and pass a new order. The Tribunal had initially set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the depreciation claims and other adjustments. However, the Assessing Officer merely reiterated the previous income determination without proper examination. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's actions did not comply with its directions, leading to the decision to allow the rectification application and direct the Assessing Officer to correct the income computation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833778 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Depreciation; TDS; Procedural lapse
• Section: 115JB

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No. 106/Ahd/2025 (In ITA No. 81/Ahd/2025) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gujarat State Aviation Infrastructure Co. Ltd., MRO Complex, SVPI Airport, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004 [PAN : AADCG 8945 Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad (Applicant) .. (Respondent) Applicant represented by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr DR Date of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”) seeking rectification of the order dated 17.04.2025, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 81/Ahd/2025, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017–18 on 07.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,23,689/- and book profit at NIL under section 115JB of the Act. The return was processed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act on 30.10.2018, wherein the total income was determined at Rs.1,47,24,859/-, resulting in a demand of Rs.50,86,560/-, primarily on account of disallowance of depreciation and other adjustments. The assessee filed a rectification application before CPC, which came to be rejected vide order dated 05.10.2020. A further rectification application was thereafter filed before the Assessing Officer on 24.09.2021, which was also rejected vide order dated 30.09.2021. The appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 106/Ahd/2025 Gujarat State Aviation Infrastructure Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2017-18 - 2– 17.04.2025, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the assessee’s claim after affording due opportunity of being heard and to pass an order in accordance with law. 3. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 21.07.2025 under section 254 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Act. However, in the said order, the Assessing Officer did not modify the income determined earlier and reiterated that the issue does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. 4. Before us, the assessee submitted that there is a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal’s order dated 17.04.2025 inasmuch as the directions issued by the Tribunal have not been properly and effectively implemented by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, CPC had erroneously adopted total income of Rs.1,47,24,859/- as against NIL profit reflected in the Profit and Loss Account, by disallowing depreciation, which itself constituted a mistake apparent from the record. It was further contended that CPC had made a double disallowance of interest on TDS and interest on Service Tax aggregating to Rs.2,47,380/-, whereas the assessee had already disallowed an amount of Rs.1,23,689/- in the return of income. According to the assessee, despite specific directions of the Tribunal to verify the claim and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, the Assessing Officer merely reiterated the earlier position without undertaking the examination directed by the Tribunal. The assessee, therefore, prayed that the Tribunal’s order be rectified and appropriate directions be issued to ensure proper implementation, contending that the correct total income ought to be Rs.1,23,689/-. 5. We have carefully considered the Miscellaneous Application, the order of the Tribunal dated 17.04.2025, and the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 21.07.2025. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that although the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a specific Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 106/Ahd/2025 Gujarat State Aviation Infrastructure Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2017-18 - 3– direction to examine the assessee’s claim of depreciation and pass a speaking order in accordance with law, the Assessing Officer has merely reiterated the earlier intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act without carrying out the verification directed by the Tribunal. During the course of hearing of the Miscellaneous Application, the Assessing Officer present before the Bench was apprised of the procedural lapse. The Assessing Officer submitted that the directions of the Tribunal would be given effect to in their proper perspective and submitted that appropriate rectification would be carried out in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal. Accordingly, in order to meet the ends of justice, the Assessing Officer is directed to carry out the necessary rectification in accordance with law and strictly in terms of the directions of the Tribunal, after giving effect to the correct computation of income. Consequently, upon such rectification, the total income of the assessee shall stand at Rs.1,23,689/-. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 03.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated….03.02.2026 btk आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "