ITO, CHENNAI V. .RAKESH SARIN, CHENNAI

MA 82/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves multiple miscellaneous applications (M.A. Nos. 82 to 86/Chny/2023) filed by the Revenue against orders passed in earlier miscellaneous applications (M.A. Nos. 115 to 119/Chny/2020) which were dismissed due to low tax effect. The Revenue sought to recall or modify these orders. The main legal contention was whether an application under section 254(2) for rectification of an order passed under section 254(2) is maintainable. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the High Court of Karnataka and the Delhi Tribunal, concluded that such repetitive applications are not permissible, leading to the dismissal of all applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29437 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Alpana Bhartia, Padam Prakash (HUF) vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMATHA MULLAMUDI LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: K. RAVI; VARUN RANGANATHAN
• Keywords: Tax effect; Rectification of order
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” \u000eा यपीठ चे\u0013ई म\u0016। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI मा ननीय \u0019ी मनोज क ुमा र अ\u001dवा ल ,लेखा सद# एवं मा ननीय \u0019ी मनु क ुमा र िग'र, \u000eा ियक सद# क े सम(। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM 1.M.A. No.82/Chny/2023 [In M.A No.115/Chny/2020 - ITA No.3048/Chny/2019] (िनधा )रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2.M.A. No.83/Chny/2023 [In M.A No.116/Chny/2020 & ITA No.3049/Chny/2019] (िनधा )रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3.M.A. No.84/Chny/2023 [In M.A No.117/Chny/2020 & ITA No.3050/Chny/2019] (िनधा )रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4.M.A. No.85/Chny/2023 [In M.A No.118/Chny/2020 & ITA No.3051/Chny/2019] (िनधा )रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5.M.A. No.86/Chny/2023 [In M.A No.119/Chny/2020 & ITA No.3052/Chny/2019] (िनधा )रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) JCIT Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. बना म/ Vs. Shri Rakesh Sarin #5E, Mookambigai Complex, Lady Desika Road, Chennai-600 004. \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADXPR-7428-R (अपीलाथ\u001c/Appellant) : (\u001f थ\u001c / Respondent) अपीलाथ\u001c कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Smt. Samatha Mullamudi (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR \u001f थ\u001cकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri K.Ravi & Shri Varun Ranganathan (Advocates)- Ld. ARs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of these applications, the Revenue seeks recall / modification of Tribunal order passed in misc. applications MA Nos.115, 116, 117,118 & 119/Chny/2020 on 24-08-2022. The bench dismissed the earlier Misc. Applications filed by the revenue on low tax effect. 2. The Ld. AR raised a preliminary objection that an application u/s 254(2) is not maintainable on an order passed u/s 254(2). In other words, MA on MA is not permissible. For the same, Ld. AR referred to various judicial decisions, the copies of which have been placed on record. 3. We concur that an application u/s 254(2) would not lie against an order passed u/s 254(2) since such applications could be preferred only against an order passed u/s 254(1). Our view is duly fortified by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Alpana Bhartia (106 Taxmann.com 397) wherein it has been held as under: - 7. Section 253 of the Act provides an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, which would be considered under Section 254 of the Act. Section 254(1) contemplates hearing of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal and passing of the order thereon. Sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Act would empower the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed under sub-section (1), if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties to the proceedings, within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. From a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 254, it would be clear that the Tribunal possesses the power to rectify any mistake apparent on the record in the order passed by it under sub-Section (1). If the order under sub-section (2) of Section 254 is passed, the said order would not be available for rectification of mistake again under Section 254 (2) of the Act. The order passed under Section 254(2) cannot be rectified nor amended by invoking sub-section (2) of Section 254 once again. Repetitive applications under Section 254 (2) of the Act are not permissible. In the case on hand also, the Tribunal in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of Section 254 has rectified the mistake apparent on the record and deleted the double addition of income in respect of the assessee. Thereafter, the Revenue again files an application under sub-section (2) of Section 254 seeking rectification of the order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 254 which is not maintainable. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Misc. petition filed by the Revenue. There is no error or omission in the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. No substantial question would arise in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. This decision has also considered the decision of Delhi Tribunal (Special Bench) in the case of Padam Prakash (HUF) vs. ITO (9 Taxmann.com 178) taking the same view. Therefore, we would hold that these applications are not maintainable 4. All the applications stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 13th December, 2024. Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) \u000eा ियक सद# / JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे3ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 13-12-2024 DS आदेशकीAितिलिपअ\u001dेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u001c/Appellant 2. \u001f थ\u001c/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु