ITO WARD-1, AMBALA V. DSR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., AMBALA

MA 4/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (revenue) challenging the Tribunal's earlier decision which partly allowed the appeal of M/s DSR Developers (P) Ltd., concerning the validity of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had previously found that the issues raised in the revisionary order were not part of the limited scrutiny under CASS for which the case was selected. The revenue sought to modify this decision by presenting new evidence that the case was selected for 'Complete Scrutiny' under a different category, which was not discussed in the original order. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the new evidence presented by the revenue was not admissible under section 254(2) as it constituted a new fact and not a mistake apparent from the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360662 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT BECTOR LD
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN LD.
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM MA No.04/Chandi/2024 (In ITA No.520/CHANDI/2019) (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITO Ward-1 Ambala. बनाम/ Vs. M/s DSR Developers (P) Ltd. C/o Sudershan Kumar 29/30, Parry’s Hotel, Bank Road Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCD-2269-D (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Bector (CA) – Ld. AR ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 16-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of this application, the revenue seeks our indulgence in Tribunal order passed in captioned appeal on 20-11-2023. In this appeal, the assessee challenged the validity of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal on the ground that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The matters as flagged in the revisionary order were not part of the reasons for which the matter was selected for limited scrutiny. On this fact alone, the bench, in para-24, held that the revision could not be done. 2 2. In the petition, it has been stated by the revenue that as per system generate sheet, the case of the assessee was selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ under the category ‘Compulsory. The order has not discussed / mentioned about the issue / reason for selection of case under the complete scrutiny. It has further been stated that in the notice issued u/s 143(2), Ld. AO wrongly mentioned that the case was selected for limited scrutiny which was a typographical error. Thus, the order needs modification accordingly. 3. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, stated that no case of indulgence u/s 254(2) has been made out by revenue which has limited application to rectify mistakes which are apparent from record. The Tribunal could not revisit its earlier order solely because new evidence emerges after the order was passed. The Ld. AR stated that fact about the scrutiny status was not submitted during hearing. Its later discovery would not constitute mistake apparent form record. 4. It is undisputed fact that a notice u/s 143(2) was issued by Ld. AO on 21-09-2015 during the course of regular assessment proceedings stating that the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify large increase in unsecured loans and share premium received by the assessee during the year. This fact was duly taken note of by the bench in para-24 of the order. The assessment order dated 02-11-2016 passed u/s 143(3) is silent about the fact as to whether the case was selected for limited scrutiny or complete scrutiny. However, the consequential assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 31-12-2019 also take note of the fact that the 3 case was originally selected through CASS to examine the issue of unsecured loans and large share premium. It is quite clear that neither this argument was taken by revenue at the time of hearing nor was any material brought to the notice of the bench to rebut this fact. The bench has gone by the material that was available on record at the time of hearing. What revenue now contends is nothing but a new fact / evidence which could not be considered u/s 254(2) which has limited applicability to correct mistake that is apparent from record. Review of the order is impermissible. Therefore, we concur with the submissions of Ld. AR. 5. The application stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 19-05-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT लेखासद˟ /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19-05-2025. आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH "