ITO WARD - 45(1), NEW DELHI V. PALM TRACOM LLP, NEW DELHI

MA 15/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application by the Revenue seeking rectification of a Tribunal order dated 27.06.2023, which had allowed the appeal of the assessee, Palm Tracom LLP, on the grounds that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued without valid satisfaction. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on a misunderstanding of the law regarding the validity of notices issued on the basis of specific information from the Investigation Wing. However, the Tribunal clarified that it does not have the authority to review its decisions under section 254(2) of the Act, only to rectify mistakes that are apparent from the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633499 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: AGR Investments Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITO vs. Purushotam Das Bangur, Phool Chand Bajrang vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: WAYOFTHISMISCELLANEOUSAPPLICATIONISSEEKING
• Assessee Lawyers: MANSI JAIN; CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT; SAKSHIRUSTAGI
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Reopening of assessment; Rectification of order; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No. 15/Del/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 1944/Del/2020, A.Y 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(1), R. No. 1810, E-2 Block, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002 ...... आवेदक/Applicant बनाम Vs. Palm Tracom LLP, Shop 103, First Floor, Deepali Chowk, CSC-II, UP Samaj, Pitampura, New Delhi 110034 PAN: AAQFP-8495-G ..... ĤǓतवादȣ/Respondent आवेदक ɮवारा/ Applicant by : Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR Ůितवादी Ȫारा/Respondent by : Ms. Mansi Jain, Chartered Accountant & Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Advocate सुनवाई कȧ Ǔतͬथ/ Date of hearing : 06/06/2025 घोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ/ Date of pronouncement : 13/06/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue seeking rectification in the Tribunal order dated 27.06.2023, whereby appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1944/Del/2020 for AY 2011-12 was decided. 2. Ms. Neeju Gupta, representing the department initially prayed for adjournment as some report from the Assessing Officer (AO) was not received by her. It was pointed to her that on previous three occasions the Miscellaneous 2 MA No.15/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) Application was adjourned on the request of Department. The ld. DR thereafter made her submissions stating that the Tribunal has allowed appeal of the assessee observing that the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued without any valid satisfaction. The Tribunal further observed that it was on the basis of borrowed satisfaction from a report of Investigation Wing that the AO reopened assessment without independent application of mind. Referring to various decisions, she submitted that where notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on the basis of specific information from Investigation Wing, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that there was material before the AO to form an opinion and the reopening was held to be valid. In support of her submissions, she placed reliance on following decisions:- (i) AGR Investments Ltd. vs. ACIT, 197 Taxman 177 (Delhi); (ii) ITO vs. Purushotam Das Bangur 224 ITR 362 (SC); & (iii) Phool Chand Bajrang vs. ITO 203 ITR 456 (SC). 3. Per contra, Ms. Mansi Jain appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that there is no mistake as alleged by ld. DR in order of the Tribunal dated 27.06.2023. The Revenue by way of this Miscellaneous Application is seeking review of the order which is not permissible under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. 4. Both sides heard. The ld. DR has pointed that the Tribunal has quashed reopening of assessment on the ground that the reasons recorded for reopening are bad in law. Hence, the reassessment proceedings are in valid. Apart from the aforesaid reason, no mistake is pointed by the Department in the order of Tribunal. The provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, empowers the Tribunal to 3 MA No.15/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) rectify any mistake in the order of Tribunal which is apparent from the record. The said provision does not provide the Tribunal power to review its order. The Department has not pointed any mistake apparent on record in the order of Tribunal that is rectifiable u/s. 542(2) of the Act but is seeking to reargue the issue in the garb of rectification of mistake. The Tribunal is not empowered to entertain any review petition u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Hence, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 13th day June, 2025. Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, Ǒदनांक/Dated 13.06.2025 NV/- ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/The Appellant , 2. ĤǓतवादȣ/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आय.अपी.अͬध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाड[ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "