HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI V. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

MA 55/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari against an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. The application contended that the Tribunal's earlier decision failed to consider the limitation period for an order under Section 263 of the Act, as argued based on the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. The Departmental Representative opposed the application, stating that the issue was not previously argued. The Tribunal concluded that the application sought a review on a new ground, which is beyond its jurisdiction under Section 254(2).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786028 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC), ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय Ûयायाͬधकरण मɅ, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बɅच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Įी मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदèय एवं Įी रवीश सूद, माननीय ÛयाǓयक सदèय SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.55/Hyd/2025 (In आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.687/Hyd/2024) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari, Tirupati. PAN : ACHPH8330D. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Tirupati. (अपीलाथŎ/ Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent) करदाता का Ůितिनिधȕ/ Assessee Represented by : Sri Shashank, Advocate राजˢ का Ůितिनिधȕ/ Department Represented by : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई समाɑ होने की ितिथ/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 22/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/10/2025 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M. The present miscellaneous application filed by the assessee under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) arises from the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 687/Hyd/2024, dated 12.03.2025. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA 55/Hyd/2025 Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari vs. ITO 2. The assessee applicant in its present application has, inter alia, contended that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from a mistake apparent from record in as much as it had failed to consider the assessee’s contention that the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short, “Pr. CIT”) under Section 263 of the Act was barred by limitation. 3. Shri. Shashank Dundu (for short, “A.R”) at the threshold of hearing of the application submitted that, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC), the limitation for the purpose of section 263 ought to have been reckoned from the date of the original assessment order and not from the date of the reassessment order. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submits that though a written submission containing the subject contention was filed in the paper book during the course of the hearing of the original appeal but the same had not been considered by the Tribunal. The Ld. AR further submitted that since the issue goes to the very root of the matter and is purely legal, the same ought to have been adjudicated by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal. 4. Per Contra, the learned Departmental Representative (for short, “D.R”.), on the other hand, strongly opposed the application. It was Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA 55/Hyd/2025 Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari vs. ITO vehemently submitted by him that the issue relating to limitation under section 263 was never raised or argued during the course of the hearing of the appeal, and, therefore, the said novel plea cannot be entertained under section 254(2) of the Act. 5. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 687/Hyd/2024, dated 12.03.2025 in the backdrop of the contents of the present application. 6. Admittedly, during the course of hearing of the appeal, no contention whatsoever was raised by the assessee company/appellant that the order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263 was barred by limitation, or that the limitation should be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order and not the reassessment order. The record of the proceedings as well as the Tribunal’s order do not reveal that any such contention was either raised or pressed before the Bench. In fact, we find that the subject issue is being urged for the first time only through the present application filed under section 254(2) of the Act. 7. Before proceeding further, we may herein observe that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to the rectification of a mistake that is glaring, apparent, patent and obvious from record. It does not empower the Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA 55/Hyd/2025 Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari vs. ITO Tribunal to review or permit re-arguing of the the matter on issues that were neither raised nor adjudicated in the original proceedings. In this regard, it will be relevant to point out that as per the settled position of law a mistake apparent from record must be manifest, obvious, and self- evident from the record of the case, and not one that requires a long- drawn process of reasoning or re-examination of issues. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) has held that non-consideration of a decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court, even if not cited before the Tribunal, can constitute a mistake apparent from record rectifiable under section 254(2). However, we are afraid that the aforesaid principle cannot be stretched to include situations where an altogether new ground or fresh legal plea is sought to be raised for the first time through a rectification application. 8. Coming back to the issue in hand, we are of the considered view that as the limitation issue under section 263 of the Act was neither a ground of appeal nor a matter argued during the original hearing of the appeal, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal in ITA No. 687/Hyd/2024, dated 12.03.2025 cannot be held to be suffering from any mistake apparent from record rendering the said order amenable for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act Act. Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA 55/Hyd/2025 Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari vs. ITO 9. In fact, we would not hesitate to observe that what the assessee in fact seeks is a review of the order on a new ground, which is beyond the limited powers conferred upon the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Act. Our view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it is held that in exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal cannot re-visit its earlier decision and review the same. What can be rectified is a mistake apparent from the record, and not something which requires re-appreciation of evidence or permitting re- argument on merits. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further clarified that an attempt to re-argue the case or change the conclusion reached earlier amounts to review, which falls beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Act. 10. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are of a firm conviction that as there is no mistake apparent from record in the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal in ITA No. 687/Hyd/2024, dated 12.03.2025, therefore, the present miscellaneous application filed by the assessee being devoid and bereft of any substance does not merit acceptance. Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA 55/Hyd/2025 Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari vs. ITO 11. In result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee applicant is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- Sd/- (Įी रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) Ɋाियक सद˟/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- Hyderabad, dated 29.10.2025. OKK/sps आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. िनधाŊįरती/The Assessee : Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari, Tirupati, 19-7-125/A, Flat No.202, Krishna Apartment, Gopalraju Colony, R.C. Road, Tirupati - 517501, Andhra Pradesh. 2. राजˢ/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh – 517501. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati. 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गाडŊफ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad Printed from counselvise.com "