INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI V. PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

MA 10/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhamtari against Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, challenging an earlier ITAT order which quashed an assessment order. The revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in its observation regarding the non-compliance of the provisions of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal, however, upheld its earlier decision, stating that the revenue failed to substantiate its claim that the assessee did not disclose all material facts during the original assessment proceedings. The Tribunal reiterated that its role under section 254(2) is not to re-hear cases on merits but to correct apparent mistakes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360511 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4), Mumbai v. Reliance Telecom Limited, CIT v. Pearl Woolen Mills, CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd., Sri Madireddy Venkat Reddy v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range -11, Hyderabad, T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers, CIT vs. HERO CYCLES (P) LTD etc., ACIT v. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Rectification of order
• Section: 147; 144; 154

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर Ûयायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी अǽण खोड़ͪपया, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ । BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Miscellaneous Application No. 10/RPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 157/RPR/2024) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned Miscellaneous Application filed by the department has been emanating out of the Appellate Order in ITA No. 157/RPR/2024 dated 21.10.2024 passed by the division bench of ITAT, Raipur, in the case of aforesaid assessee for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The brief facts of the case along with the grounds of miscellaneous application submitted by the department are extracted as under: Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhamtari, Shankardan Road, Vill- Haraftrai, Dhamtari, C.G. v s Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, H. No. 19, Ramjanki Mandir, Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari-493 773 PAN: ACHPA6856B (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) . . (Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 09.05.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 2 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari 3 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari 4 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari 5 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari 3. In filing of the aforesaid miscellaneous application, the main grievance raised by the revenue is that the impugned assessment order framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 26.03.2022 has been quashed by the Tribunal with the erroneous observation that the revenue was failed in complying the provisions of first proviso to section 147 of the Act in substantiating that there was the failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment during the original assessment proceedings. 4. The aforesaid contention of the revenue does not fall within the category of a mistake apparent from records, as only after deliberation qua the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AO, the tribunal had contemplated on the issue, taking due support from the relevant judicial pronouncements and had held that there was no substantiation by the revenue to establish that the assessee was failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, which is the mandate of law. A simple mention in the reasons to believe by Ld. AO that there was a failure on the part of the assessee regarding the requisite disclosure would not be sufficient to discharge the onus cast upon the revenue, there should be specific mention about the failures on the part of the assessee with details etc. Since the aforesaid claim of revenue that the view taken by the ITAT falls within the scope of mistake apparent 6 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari from record is found to be misconceived and bereft of substance, therefore, the same cannot be accepted and concurred with. Rather, the request of department constitutes expectation of the revenue that the order passed by ITAT to be reviewed in the garb of miscellaneous application requesting for recalling of the order which is not permitted and not within the powers conferred upon the tribunal under the provisions of section 254 of the Act. 5. In terms of the aforesaid observations considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any substance in the application made by the revenue and, therefore, the MA of revenue stands rejected. 6. Our aforesaid view has been further fortified with the following judicial pronouncement. 7. Regarding the mandate of law which allows the tribunal to deal with miscellaneous application of the appellant, the tribunal is having limited powers to rectify any apparent and glaring mistake on the face of records. The tribunal is not expected to re-hear the entire case on merits or to revisit its earlier order and to deal with the merits on the basis of arguments by the appellant. In this respect, the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4), Mumbai v. Reliance 7 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari Telecom Limited dated December 3, 2021, in Civil Appeal No. 7110 of 2021 reported in [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), shall be relevant and binding on us to follow, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: 3.2 Having gone through both the orders passed by the ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18-11-2016 recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under section 254(2) of the Act. While allowing the application under section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013, it appears that the ITAT has re- heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record only. Therefore, the powers under section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. While considering the application under section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. 4. In the present case, a detailed order was passed by the ITAT when it passed an order on 6-9- 2013, by which the ITAT held in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, the said order could not have been recalled by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act. If the Assessee was of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous, either on facts or in law, in that case, the only remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer the appeal before the High Court, which as such was already filed by the Assessee before the High Court, which the Assessee withdrew after the order passed by the ITAT dated 18-11-2016 recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013. Therefore, as such, the order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 which has been passed in exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal conferred under section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the ITAT dated 18-11-2016 recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 is unsustainable, which ought to have been set aside by the High Court. 5. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the 8 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case. 8. We may herein also note that in the case of CIT v. Pearl Woolen Mills [2011] 330 ITR 164/[2010] 191 Taxman 286 (Punj. &Har.), Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court have accorded similar findings which reads as under: “Held, that the Tribunal could not re adjudicate the matter under section 254(2). It is well settled that a statutory authority cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There was no express power of review conferred on the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review did not extent to rehearing a case on the merits. Neither by invoking inherent power nor the principle of mistake of court not prejudicing a litigant nor by involving doctrine of incidental power, could the Tribunal reverse a decision on the merits. The Tribunal was not justified in recalling its previous finding restoring the addition, more so when an application for the same relief had been earlier dismissed.\" 9 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari 9. In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 163/159 Taxman 122 (Delhi), their Lordships while considering the powers of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 observed as under: “Under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. However, it is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the pre-requisite for exercise of either power may be similar (a mistake apparent from the record), by its very nature the power to rectify a mistake cannot result in the recall and review of the order sought to be rectified.” 10. Regarding scope of application of section 254(2), coordinate bench of the tribunal, ITAT Hyderabad, A bench in the case of Sri Madireddy Venkat Reddy v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range -11, Hyderabad reported in [2013] 38 taxmann.com 60 (Hyderabad - Trib.) has dealt in detail and has observed as under: 9. The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. We shall first deal with the question of the power of the Tribunal to recall an order in its entirety. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under s. 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned. Any order passed under s. 254(2) either allowing the amendment or refusing to amend gets merged with the original order passed. The order as amended or remaining unamended is the effective order for all practical purposes. An order under s. 254(2) does not have existence de hors the order under s. 254(1). Recalling of the order is not permissible under s. 254(2). Recalling of an order automatically necessitates rehearing and re-adjudication of the entire subject matter of appeal. The dispute no longer remains restricted to any mistake sought to be rectified. Power to recall an order is prescribed in terms of Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, and that too only in case where the assessee shows that it had a reasonable cause for being absent at a time when the appeal was taken up and was decided ex parte. Judged in the above background the order passed by the Tribunal is indefensible. 10 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari 10. The words used in s. 254(2) are 'shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice'. Clearly, if there is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not indicate that the Tribunal can recall the entire order and pass a fresh decision. That would amount to a review of the entire order and that is not permissible under the IT Act. The power to rectify a mistake under s. 254(2) cannot be used for recalling the entire order. No power of review has been given to the Tribunal under the IT Act. Thus, what it could not do directly could not be allowed to be done indirectly. 11. In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 163/159 Taxman 122 (Delhi), their Lordships while considering the powers of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 observed as under: \"Under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. However, it is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the pre-requisite for exercise of either power may be similar (a mistake apparent from the record), by its very nature the power to rectify a mistake cannot result in the recall and review of the order sought to be rectified.\" 12. Thus the scope and ambit of application u/s. 254(2) is as follows: \"(a) Firstly, the scope and ambit of application of s. 254(2) of IT Act is restricted to rectification of the mistakes apparent from the record. (b) Secondly, that no party appearing before the Tribunal should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal and if the prejudice has resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake/error or omission, and which an error is a manifest error, then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake. The \"rule of precedent\" is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law and that principle is not obliterated by s. 254(2) of the Act and non-consideration of precedent by the Tribunal causes a prejudice to the assessee. (c) Thirdly, power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. 11 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari (d) Fourthly, under s. 254(2) an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under the section. (e) Fifthly, failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment. (f) Sixthly, even if on the basis of a wrong conclusion the Tribunal has not allowed a claim of the party it will not be a ground for moving an application under s. 254(2) of the Act. (g) Lastly, in the garb of an application for rectification under s. 254(2) the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter as the same is beyond the scope of s. 254(2) of the IT Act.\" 13. Further, the order of the Tribunal is to be read in a whole and not in a piecemeal manner. For this purpose, we place reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 535/43 Taxman 45 wherein held that the decision of the Tribunal has not to be scrutinised sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts USP have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or whether some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been noticed by the Tribunal in its judgment. If the court, on a fair reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to state in its judgment specifically or in express words that it has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or has considered the totality of the facts, as if that were a magic formula; if the judgment of the Tribunal shows that it has, in fact, done so, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. 14. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the argument of the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal cannot review its own order and the remedy lies elsewhere. We do not find any mistake apparent on record which warrants rectification of Tribunal's order. 15. In the result, the MA filed by assessees is dismissed. 12 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari 11. Regarding a mistake apparent from record there are landmark judgments wherein it has been explicitly explained and ruled that what should be categorized as a mistake apparent on record. For the sake of clarity, the three relevant judgments by Hon’ble Apex Court are extracted as under: I. T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers*[1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) DB \"A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. MallikarjunBhavanappa Tirumale [I960] 1 SCR 890, this court while spelling out the scope of the power of a High Court under article 226 of the Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record—see Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 21 ITR 333 (Bom.). The power of the officers mentioned in section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to correct “any mistake apparent from the record” is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an “error apparent on the face of the record.” In this case it is not necessary for us to spell out the distinction between the expressions “error apparent on the face of the record” and “mistake apparent from the record”. But suffice it to say that the Income-tax Officer was wholly wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the first respondent.’’ 13 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari II. CIT vs. HERO CYCLES (P) LTD etc. (1997)228 ITR 463(SC) Civil Appeal No.7665/96 2. The High Court declined to call for a reference under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. It appears that the claim for deduction under s. 35B was not originally allowed at all. Thereafter, on an assessee’s application an order was passed by the CIT(A), Jalandhar, in which he directed certain allowances to be given on proportionate basis after verification of the assessee’s claim under s. 35B. The ITO thereafter entertained assessee’s prayer for rectification of the order and allowed the assessee’s claim in respect of matters like coloured albums, export staff travelling expenses, export sales commission, ECGC, foreign dealers visiting expenses. Rectification under s. 154 can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, the point which was not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt as mistake apparent on the record. The dispute raised a mixed question of fact and law. The Tribunal was in error in upholding the assessee’s claim for weighted deductions. There is no point in sending the matter to the High Court to deal with the question raised at this stage. We treat the question as referred to this Court and answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. The appeal is allowed. III. ACIT v. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) DB 37. In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need a long-drawn-out process of reasoning 14 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on record. If the view accepted by the court in the original judgment is one of possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record. 12. In view of the aforesaid binding, guiding and settled principle of law respectfully following the same, we reject the MA filed by the revenue, wherein the department is seeking for review of the earlier order of the tribunal in the garb of rectification of mistake by way of long drawn process of reasonings and arguments which is neither permissible nor allowed under the provisions of Act. 13. In view of the aforesaid observations, Since the revenue squarely failed to satisfy the prevailing conditions under the provisions of the Act, and unable to point out any mistake apparent from records which calls for rectification within the provisions of section 254(2) in the impugned order of tribunal, thus, in absence of any mistake apparent on record which warrants rectification of Tribunal's order, the contentions raised by the revenue in present MA filed being devoid and bereft of merits are rejected. 14. Resultantly, the MA No. 10/RPR/2025 of the revenue stands dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations. 15 Miscellaneous Application No.10/RPR/2025 Arising out of ITA No.157/RPR/2024 ITO Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari Order pronounced in open court on 21/05/2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; Ǒदनांक Dated 21/05/2025 Vaibhav Shrivastav आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant- ITO, Ward- Dhamtari 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Dhamtari 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // सȑािपत Ůित True copy // "