INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI V. NARIMAN BHAVAN PREMISES CO OP SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

MA 244/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) seeking to recall a Tribunal order that dismissed their appeal against M/s Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. due to the tax effect being below the monetary threshold set by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Initially, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the reported tax effect of Rs. 44,60,024. However, upon the Revenue's application, it was revealed that the actual tax effect was Rs. 94,66,905, significantly higher than the threshold. The Tribunal acknowledged the error in the initial dismissal and recalled the order, allowing the appeal to be heard again.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773442 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI
• Assessee Lawyers: AKHILESH DESHMUKH
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) M.A. No. 244/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 3659/MUM/2023) Assessment Year: 2015-16 ITO-25(3)(1), Room No. 253, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Vs. M/s Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd., 227, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 005. PAN NO. AAAJN 0320 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Akhilesh Deshmukh Revenue by : Mr. Leyaqat Ali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 22/09/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue is seeking recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 08.05.2024 passed in ITA No. 3659/Mum/2023 for assessment year 2015-16. 2. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the appeal of the Revenue was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs prescribed by the Central Board Printed from counselvise.com of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. While doing so, the Tribu fall within any of the exceptions provided in the said Circular, or if it were subsequently demonstrated that the tax effect exceeded the prescribed threshold, it would be open to the Revenue to move an application for recall of the order. 2.1 The Ld. Departmental Representative, referring to the present Miscellaneous Application, has drawn our attention to the fact that consequent upon the disallowance made under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 2,79 inclusive of surcharge and cess, comes to Rs. 94,66,905/ figure is significantly higher than the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. On examination of the records, we find that in Form No. 36 filed with the original app mentioned as Rs. 44,60,024/ came to be dismissed. However, the material now placed on record clearly establishes that the actual tax effect exceeds the prescribed limit. 2.2 In view of the above, we are satisfied that there exists a mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal. Such an error, being patent and manifest, warrants rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we recall the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and direct that the M/s Nariman Bhavan Premises Co of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. While doing so, the Tribunal also observed that if the case were to fall within any of the exceptions provided in the said Circular, or if it were subsequently demonstrated that the tax effect exceeded the prescribed threshold, it would be open to the Revenue to move an n for recall of the order. The Ld. Departmental Representative, referring to the present Miscellaneous Application, has drawn our attention to the fact that consequent upon the disallowance made under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 2,79,12,025/-, the actual tax effect, inclusive of surcharge and cess, comes to Rs. 94,66,905/ figure is significantly higher than the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. On examination of the records, we find that in Form No. 36 filed with the original appeal, the tax effect was erroneously mentioned as Rs. 44,60,024/-, on the basis of which the appeal came to be dismissed. However, the material now placed on record clearly establishes that the actual tax effect exceeds the prescribed the above, we are satisfied that there exists a mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal. Such an error, being patent and manifest, warrants rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we recall the order of the smissing the appeal of the Revenue and direct that the M/s Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. 2 M.A. No. 244/Mum/2024 of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. nal also observed that if the case were to fall within any of the exceptions provided in the said Circular, or if it were subsequently demonstrated that the tax effect exceeded the prescribed threshold, it would be open to the Revenue to move an The Ld. Departmental Representative, referring to the present Miscellaneous Application, has drawn our attention to the fact that consequent upon the disallowance made under section 80P(2)(d) of , the actual tax effect, inclusive of surcharge and cess, comes to Rs. 94,66,905/-. This figure is significantly higher than the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. On examination of the records, we find that in Form No. 36 eal, the tax effect was erroneously , on the basis of which the appeal came to be dismissed. However, the material now placed on record clearly establishes that the actual tax effect exceeds the prescribed the above, we are satisfied that there exists a mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal. Such an error, being patent and manifest, warrants rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we recall the order of the smissing the appeal of the Revenue and direct that the Printed from counselvise.com appeal be restored to its original number and fixed for hearing in the regular course. 2.3 We order accordingly 3. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 22/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Nariman Bhavan Premises Co appeal be restored to its original number and fixed for hearing in 2.3 We order accordingly. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is ounced in the open Court on 22/09/2025 Sd/- Sd/ RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. 3 M.A. No. 244/Mum/2024 appeal be restored to its original number and fixed for hearing in In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is 5. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "