ITO (EXEMPTION)-1(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. KARNATAKA SANGHA, MUMBAI

MA 573/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(4), Mumbai as the applicant and Karnataka Sangha Dr. Vishveshwarya Smarak Mandir as the respondent. The Revenue sought rectification of a Tribunal order dated 31.05.2023, which imposed costs on the Department for re-hearing an appeal that had been previously decided in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14. The Tribunal had earlier noted that the Department's action in dismissing the appeal under the faceless assessment system led to additional costs for the assessee, which justified the imposition of costs on the Department. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the rectification application, upheld the original decision, emphasizing that the Department's conduct was a clear case of procedural impropriety warranting the imposition of costs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471360 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUPENDRA SHAH
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 573/MUM/2023 (arising out of ITA NO. 519/MUM/2023) : A.Y. : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(4), Mumbai. (Applicant) Vs. Karnataka Sangha Dr. Vishveshwarya Smarak Mandir, CSM Marg, Off T.H. Kataria Marg, Matunga Road (W), Mumbai 400 016. PAN : AAATK3204A (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date of Hearing : 21/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21/02/2025 O R D E R PER JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT : By this application, Revenue is seeking rectification of order dated 31.05.2023 in ITA No. 519/Mum/2023 to the extent, it imposes costs of Rs.10,000/- on the Department. 2. The Assessing Officer, in this case, by an order dated 09.02.2016 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) for assessment year 2013- 14 had made an addition which was challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’ for short). The learned CIT(A) vide common order dated 22.01.2018 for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 had allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e. assessment year 2013-14. It appears that the said appeal was heard and decided in 2 MA No. 573/Mum/2023 Karnataka Sangha the physical mode. However, subsequently on implementation of faceless assessment system, the learned CIT(A) again took up the matter and the appeal of the assessee came to be dismissed by order dated 08.02.2023. This later order was challenged by the assessee in ITA No. 519/Mum/2023 (assessment year 2013-14), which has been decided by order dated 31.05.2023. This Tribunal noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was already allowed on 22.01.2018 and that the Department took up the appeal again in the faceless regime and dismissed the appeal which compelled the assessee to file ITA No. 519/Mum/2023 thereby incurring additional cost of Rs.10,000/- towards professional fees, etc. In that view of the matter, while allowing the said appeal, this Tribunal has imposed costs of Rs.10,000/-. 3. We have heard parties. Perused record. 4. The co-ordinate Bench has by a reasoned and speaking order imposed costs after observing that it was “absolute slackness on the part of Department to fix an appeal for hearing that has already been disposed of.” The co-ordinate Bench has found that the assessee has been forced into litigation causing inconvenience and financial burden which has resulted into the order imposing costs. We are unable to see any mistake apparent from the record in the said order so as to require rectification. It is trite that the order cannot be challenged under the garb of an application for rectification or otherwise. The co-ordinate Bench has taken a considered view of the matter imposing costs. The application is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT Mumbai; Dated : 21/02/2025 SSL 3 MA No. 573/Mum/2023 Karnataka Sangha Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(Judicial) 4. PCIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "