KEDAR ASSOCIATES,PUNE V. TDS WARD 2 PUNE, PUNE

MA 6/PUN/2025

AI Insights

Kedar Associates filed four Miscellaneous Applications seeking recall of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15. The applications were based on claims of incorrect facts and the late provision of an intimation under section 200A of the IT Act. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the relevant legal provisions, found that the original order was based on correct facts and that the issues raised in the applications did not constitute mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal also noted that the legal precedents cited by the assessee were not applicable as they were established after the original order was passed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792149 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Vanchinad Forgings Pvt. Ltd. in WP(C) No.2877 of 2025, Infantry Security and Facilities through, proprietor Tukaram M. Surayawanshi vs. ITO, W.P. Nos. 17175 to 17177 of 2024, Prakash D. Koli vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [2025] 176 taxmann.com 481 (Bombay)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVIYOGI AMBADKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARAD A. VAZE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; TDS

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. Nos.4 to 7/PUN/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos.1530 to 1533/PUN/2024) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kedar Associates, 105A Narayan Peth Off Lakmi Road, Pune- 411030. PAN : AABFK6598A Vs. ITO, TDS Ward-2, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: All the above captioned four Miscellaneous Applications u/s 254(2) of the IT Act are filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by this Tribunal in ITA Nos.1530 to 1533/PUN/2024 for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. Assessee by : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue by : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date of hearing : 12.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.4 to 7/PUN/2025 2 2. Since identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned four Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. First we shall take up the Miscellaneous Application No.4/PUN/2025 for adjudication as the lead application. MA No.4/PUN/2025 : 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in its impugned order dated 29-11-2024 in para 10 of its order wrongly mentioned - “that the appellant-assessee was already in receipt of intimation about levy of fees u/s 234E on or before 12-07-2017 when rectification letter was furnished by him.” 5. However, according to Ld. AR the intimation dated 23.11.2013 u/s 200A of the IT Act was not received and after request to the Department the same was supplied to the assessee on 02.07.2024. Accordingly, it was contended by Ld. AR that the order passed by Tribunal is based on wrong fact which required rectification. Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.4 to 7/PUN/2025 3 6. Apart from above, in the written submission it was also contended by Ld. AR that the impugned intimation dated 23-11-2013 issued u/s 200A of the IT Act bears Documents Identification Number which was made compulsory from the year 2019 and therefore it can be presumed that the impugned intimation was issued in the year 2019 or thereafter, but not in the year 2013. 7. Apart from above, Ld. AR also relied on the judgement wherein Hon’ble Kerala High Court by exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction while deciding a writ petition in the case of Vanchinad Forgings Pvt. Ltd. in WP(C) No.2877 of 2025 order dated 14.03.2025 held that if the jurisdiction is challenged then relief cannot be denied on account of delay in filing. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested to recall the order and restore the appeal to the first appellate authority who dismissed the appeal on the ground of absence of sufficient & reasonable cause of 2965 days’ delay in filing the appeal before him. 8. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue supported the order passed by the Tribunal and requested to dismiss the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. Ld. DR Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.4 to 7/PUN/2025 4 submitted that the information of passing of such an intimation on 23.11.2013 was very well known to the assessee in the year 2017 itself therefore the assessee was compelled to file an application on 10.07.2017 before the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward-2, Pune to quash levy of impugned fees u/s 234E of the IT Act. In the light of this fact, Ld. DR submitted that the delay of 2965 days was rightly not condoned by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which was rightly confirmed by the Tribunal also & there cannot be any error apparent on face of the record. 8.2 Ld. DR also submitted before the bench that the issue of Documents Identification Number was never raised by the assessee either before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC or before the Tribunal, therefore question of rectification on this count does not arise since it was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal. 8.3 Apart from above, Ld. DR also contended that the case law relied on by the assessee was passed subsequently and was not in existence at the time of passing of the impugned appellate order by the Tribunal, therefore rectification cannot be sought on the basis of a judgement which was passed subsequently. In this regard, Ld. DR relied on the judgement passed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.4 to 7/PUN/2025 5 Bombay High Court in the case of Infantry Security and Facilities through, proprietor Tukaram M. Surayawanshi vs. ITO, W.P. Nos. 17175 to 17177 of 2024 dated 03.12.2024 where the Jurisdictional Hon’ble Court has held that a subsequent decision/judgement of Co-ordinate or Larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review of the order passed prior to such decision/judgement. 9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and case law furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the Tribunal in its order dated 29.11.2024 in para 11 has given the following categorical finding :- “11. ….. in the light of the fact that in the year 2017 itself the assessee was already in receipt of information that such an order imposing fees u/s 234E has been passed, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal of the assessee…..” 10. From the perusal of above finding given in para 11 of Tribunal’s order, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal in para 10 of its order while mentioning the word ‘Intimation’ meant ‘Information’ only & not the “intimation u/s 200A” of the Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.4 to 7/PUN/2025 6 IT Act. Accordingly, we direct that the word ‘intimation’ typed in para 10 to be read as ‘information’. 10.1. With regard to plea of Documents Identification Number raised by Ld. AR, we find that the issue of Documents Identification Number was never raised by the assessee either before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC or before the Tribunal, therefore the question of rectification on this count does not arise since it was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal. 10.2. With regard to case law relied on by the assessee, we find that the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court was passed subsequently and was not in existence at the time of passing of the impugned order of the Tribunal. In the light of judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Infantry Security and Facilities through, proprietor Tukaram M. Surayawanshi vs. ITO, W.P. Nos.17175 to 17177 of 2024 order dated 03.12.2024 where the Hon’ble Court has observed as under :- “In this view of the matter, the subsequent judgment being rendered by the Supreme Court, cannot be a ground to invoke the provisions of Section 254(2) of the IT Act” Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.4 to 7/PUN/2025 7 10.3. The above Judgement was again followed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash D. Koli vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [2025] 176 taxmann.com 481 (Bombay) [08- 07-2025] wherein it was also observed :- “that a subsequent decision/judgement of Co-ordinate or Larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review of the order passed prior to such decision/judgement.” 11. Accordingly, respectfully following the above judgements of Hon’ble Bombay High Court cited (supra), rectification cannot be sought on the basis of a judgement which was passed subsequently or on a later date i.e. after passing of the impugned order by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the assessee on the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court (supra) which was passed subsequently cannot give rise to a mistake which can be said to be apparent on the face of the record. 12. Apart from above, we also find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the ground of delay of 2965 days & according to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee failed to give any sufficient or reasonable cause for the above said delay of 2965 days & the Tribunal in para 11 of its order also found that the assessee was having knowledge of levy of impugned fee u/s 234E Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.4 to 7/PUN/2025 8 of the IT Act in the year 2017 itself, which is an admitted position in the light of application dated 12-07-2017 filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer for quashing the fees levied u/s 234E of the IT Act. The above finding of the Tribunal given in para 11 of its order is a finding of fact supported by evidence available on record & the Tribunal has no powers to review its decision u/s 254(2) of the IT Act. The limited power available to the Tribunal u/s. 254(2) of the IT Act is to correct any mistake apparent from record. Since the issue has been decided on admitted facts, therefore it cannot be considered as a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, all grounds raised in support of Miscellaneous Application fails & the Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 13. In the result, the MA No.4/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee is dismissed. MA Nos.5 to 7/PUN/2025 : 14. Since the facts and issues involved in remaining three Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are identical to the facts of the case for assessment year 2013-14 in MA No.4/PUN/2025, therefore, our Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.4 to 7/PUN/2025 9 decision in MA No.4/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to remaining three Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee in MA Nos.5 to 7/PUN/2025 for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Accordingly, the remaining three Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee in MA Nos.5 to 7/PUN/2025 for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed. 15. To sum up, all the above captioned four Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 09th day of December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 09th December, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "