ITO WARD- 25(3)(1), MUMBAI V. NAVRANG BASANT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

MA 66/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the Navrang Basant Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal failed to consider certain decisions of the Hon5ble Karnataka High Court in their original ruling. However, the Tribunal clarified that the rectification under section 254(2) is not meant for reviewing or rehearing the merits of the case but is confined to correcting obvious mistakes. The Tribunal found that the original order had adequately considered all relevant judicial precedents and that the Revenue's request amounted to an impermissible review under the guise of rectification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826320 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2024
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., Pr. CIT & Anr. Vs. Totgar Co-operative Sale Society Ltd., State Bank of India vs. CIT, Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. in ITA No.561/Mum/2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARY

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.66/Mum/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.1354/Mum/2023) (Assessment Year :2018-19) ITO- 25(3)(1), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Navrang Basant Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Basant Apartments, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 005 PAN/GIR No.AAAAN1511E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Swapnil Choudhary Date of Hearing 09/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 09/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1354/Mum/2023 for Assessment Year 2018–19. The gravamen of the Revenue’s plea is that while adjudicating the appeal, the Tribunal allegedly failed to consider certain decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. reported in 395 ITR 611 and 392 ITR 74, and that such non-consideration Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 66/Mum/2024 Navrang Basant Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 2 constitutes a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification. 2. At the very outset, it is necessary to observe that the scope of rectification under section 254(2) is extremely circumscribed. The provision is not intended to enable a party to seek a review or rehearing of the matter on merits, nor does it permit re-appreciation of law or substitution of one judicial view with another. The jurisdiction is confined only to correcting a manifest, patent, and self-evident mistake apparent on the face of the record. 3. In the present case, upon a careful and holistic examination of the Tribunal’s original order, we find no such infirmity or error falling within the narrow confines of section 254(2). The Tribunal, while adjudicating the appeal, has consciously relied upon the binding and persuasive judicial precedents available on record, including the decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which were duly noticed and discussed. The Tribunal has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. in ITA No.561/Mum/2021, order dated 09.09.2023, wherein the issue stood examined threadbare. 4. Merely because a particular decision of another High Court, though cited or otherwise available, has not been expressly referred to or followed, the same by itself does not give rise to a mistake apparent from the record. It is well settled that where two views are possible and the Tribunal Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 66/Mum/2024 Navrang Basant Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 3 has consciously adopted one of the permissible views based on judicial precedents, such an order cannot be reopened under the guise of rectification. Any attempt to do so would clearly amount to a review, which is impermissible under section 254(2). 5. For the sake of completeness and to dispel any lingering doubt, the relevant observations of the Tribunal as contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the original order are reproduced hereunder, which clearly demonstrate that the issue was duly examined and decided on the basis of binding judicial principles: “12. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Pr. CIT & Anr. Vs. Totgar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (2017) 292 ITR 74 (Kar.) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of State Bank of India vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 578 (Guj.) had held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investment held with co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 13. So following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (supra) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (supra), we are of the considered view that assessee society who has earned an amount of Rs.13,85,532/- from its investment of surplus fund with co-operative banks is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Resultantly, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction by the AO to the assessee under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.” 6. A plain reading of the above extracted portion makes it abundantly clear that the Tribunal has taken a considered and conscious view after examining the judicial landscape. The grievance now raised by the Revenue essentially seeks substitution of that view with another possible interpretation, Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 66/Mum/2024 Navrang Basant Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 4 which squarely falls outside the permissible ambit of rectification proceedings. 7. In this backdrop, we hold that there is no mistake apparent from the record which calls for interference under section 254(2) of the Act. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is devoid of merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 9th January, 2026. Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 09/01/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "