KATIK RAM KURREY, BILASPUR,BILASPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

MA 7/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application filed by Kartik Ram Kurrey, the assessee, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, which had previously dismissed his appeal concerning the source of cash deposits for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee contended that the Tribunal had not adjudicated on the legal grounds (Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 3) in their earlier decision dated 09.12.2024, which they claimed was a mistake apparent from the record. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that the Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and did not require any interference. The Tribunal found that the assessee's application did not meet the criteria for rectification under Section 254(2) as it merely sought a review of the decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360628 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH SETHIA

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.07/RPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.221/RPR/2024) Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Kartik Ram Kurrey, Uslapur, Bilaspur-495 001 (C.G.) PAN: CWSPK4214Q ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 09.05.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 2 MA No. 07/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The captioned Miscellaneous Applications has been filed by the assessee arising out of ITA No.221/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2013- 14 u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee by filing the present miscellaneous application submitted that the Tribunal vide its order dated 09.12.2024 had only adjudicated the Ground of appeal No.4 qua the merits of the case and not adjudicated the Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 3 qua the legal grounds which constitutes a mistake apparent from record amenable for rectification u/s.254(2) of the Act. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the order of the Tribunal dated 09.12.2024 is well reasoned and the same does not call for any inference. It was also contended by the Ld. Sr. DR that as the assessee has failed to point out any mistake apparent from record which can be rectified u/s.254(2) of the Act, therefore, the captioned application filed by the assessee may be dismissed as devoid and bereft of any merits. 4. Having heard the parties herein, we are of the considered view that the assessee had failed to point out any mistake apparent from record 3 MA No. 07/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 which can be rectified u/s.254(2) of the Act. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal dated 09.12.2024, it transpires that the Tribunal in its own wisdom had adjudicated the merits of the case without going into the legal grounds raised by the assessee. We are of the considered view that there is no mandate or provision by which the Tribunal is duty bound to adjudicate both i.e. (i) grounds on merits and (ii) legal grounds. The Tribunal had adjudicated the appeal on merits against the assessee, therefore, it is not required for the Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal on legal grounds. In this case the substantive issue involved was with regard to source of cash deposits and as had been observed by the Tribunal the assessee had failed to explain the cash deposits source and no evidences were filed either before the sub-ordinate authorities or before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The findings paras of 13 and 14 of the Tribunal’s order are extracted as follows: “13. As the assessee in the present case had neither before the lower authorities nor before us placed on record any material which would irrefutably substantiate to the hilt that the cash deposits in question were sourced out of his explained sources, therefore, we find no reason to dislodge the addition made by the AO. 14. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merits is dismissed.” As the assessee had failed to point out any mistake which is apparent, obvious, patent and glaring from record, therefore, we are of the view that the assessee by filing the present miscellaneous application has sought 4 MA No. 07/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 review of order of the Tribunal which is not within the realm of Section 254(2) of the Act. 5. We are of the considered view that the assessee in the garb of the aforesaid miscellaneous application is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.221/RPR/2024, dated 09.12.2024, which is beyond the scope of the powers of the Tribunal as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: \" ....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record........\" Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it was held as under: \"From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become 5 MA No. 07/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that.” 6. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed. 7. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 20th May, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, 6 MA No. 07/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "