INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAGERCOIL V. MAHALAKSHMI RAMASAMY, NAGERCOIL

MA 133/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nagercoil as the appellant and Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy as the respondent. The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the Tribunal's order which had dismissed the Department's appeal regarding cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,38,57,250. The Tribunal had previously upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which found that the cash deposits were business turnovers confirmed by Hatsun Agro Products Ltd. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal overlooked certain factual aspects and that new evidence was improperly admitted by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal found that all relevant facts had been considered and that the Revenue's application did not demonstrate any mistake apparent from the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792038 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Rule 46A
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARTHIK DASARI; BY VIRTUAL

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ’ए’ \u000eयायपीठ, चे\u000eनई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी मनु क ुमार िग र, ाियक सद\u0010 एवं \u0001ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद\u0010 क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./MA. No.133/Chny/2025 IN ITA No.2893/Chny/2024 \u0018नधा\u0019रण वष\u0019/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nagercoil, 379, KP Road, Nagercoil, Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu-629001 v. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy, 3/3B3, Vathiyarvilai, Nagercoil, Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu-629001 [PAN: DJTPM-5698-P] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Assessee by : None यथ क ओर से /Revenue by : Mr. Karthik Dasari, JCIT by Virtual सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 17.10.2025 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: The Revenue has filed the present Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the Tribunal’s Order dated 06.02.2025, whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the Department’s appeal and upheld the Printed from counselvise.com MA. No.133/Chny/2025 IN ITA No.2893/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) ITO Ward-1, Nagercoil Vs. Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy :: 2 :: relief granted to the assessee by the ld.CIT(A) in respect of cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,38,57,250/-. 2. The Revenue contends that the Tribunal failed to consider certain factual aspects and that the Ld. CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A. It therefore, requests that the impugned order be recalled. 3. The Assessee opposes the Miscellaneous Application, contending that the Tribunal has already considered all relevant facts, that the Ld. CIT(A)’s findings were based on credible evidence substantiating the Assessee’s business transactions with Hatsun Agro Products Ltd., and that the Revenue is attempting to re-argue the matter under the guise of a recall petition. 4. The only question before us is whether the Revenue has demonstrated any mistake apparent from the record justifying recall of the Tribunal’s order dated 06.02.2025? Printed from counselvise.com MA. No.133/Chny/2025 IN ITA No.2893/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) ITO Ward-1, Nagercoil Vs. Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy :: 3 :: 5. We have in our detailed order dated 06.02.2025, had considered the Assessee’s role as an agent of Hatsun Agro Products Ltd., responsible for collection and deposit of sale proceeds and examined the bank statements of both the assessee and Hatsun Agro Products Ltd. submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) and further accepted the CIT(A)’s findings that the cash deposits were fully explained, routed through banking channels, and represented business turnover duly confirmed by the principal company. We had also addressed and rejected the Revenue’s contentions regarding violation of Rule 46A, observing that no prejudice was caused to the Revenue in view of the overwhelming evidence on record. The Revenue’s application does not point out any factual error in the Tribunal’s appreciation of this evidence. It is well-settled that a recall petition may be entertained only in case of a mistake apparent from the record. A Miscellaneous Application cannot function as an appeal or review and re-argument of the very same issues is impermissible. The Revenue, through this application, seeks to re-open the entire appeal, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2). Hence, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is hereby REJECTED. Printed from counselvise.com MA. No.133/Chny/2025 IN ITA No.2893/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) ITO Ward-1, Nagercoil Vs. Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy :: 4 :: 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 09th day of December, 2025, in Chennai. SD/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (मनु क ुमार िग र) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) \u000eया\u0018यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\u000eनई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 09 December, 2025. SNDP आदेश क \u0018त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "