KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S KOYA AND COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD),HYDERABAD V. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

MA 57/HYD/2025

AI Insights

M/s. Koya and Company Construction Ltd. filed three Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had been passed for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. The applications were based on the grounds that the Tribunal had not considered certain judicial precedents cited by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, which allegedly constituted a mistake apparent from the record. The Departmental Representative opposed the MAs, arguing that they sought a review of the Tribunal's order, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found no mistake in the original order, emphasizing that it had consciously distinguished the contracts involved in the present assessment years from those considered in A.Y. 2006-07 based on factual differences.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785116 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (266 ITR 99)(SC), PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd. (448 ITR 732)(SC), PCIT v. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. (295 CTR 586)(SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT 295 ITR 466, CIT v. Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala Private Ltd vs. ACIT 330 ITR 243, CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 Taxmann.com 41 (SC), Vrundavan Ginning & Oil Mill v. Asst. Registrar (2021) 126 Taxmann.com 227 (Guj.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K.C.DEVDAS
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

" MA Nos 56 to 58 of 2025 Koya and Company Construction Ltd Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad ŵी रिवश सूद,Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद˟ समƗ | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member M.A. Nos.56 to 58/Hyd/2025 (आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.916 to 918/Hyd/2019) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Years: 2003-2004 to 2005-06) M/s Koya And Company Construction Ltd (formerly known as M/s. Koya and Company Construction (P) Ltd, Hyderabad PAN:AACCK3240R Vs. Dy.CIT Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachn Kumar, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 07/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These three Miscellaneous Applications (“MAs”) are filed by M/s. Koya and Company Construction Ltd. (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the one common order passed by this Tribunal in ITA Nos.916 to 918/Hyd/2019 for Assessment Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos 56 to 58 of 2025 Koya and Company Construction Ltd Page 2 of 6 Years 2003-04 to 2005-06, dated 16.01.2025. Since the issue involved in all three MAs is common, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from mistakes which are glaring, patent and apparent from the record, therefore liable to rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). He further submitted that the issue involved in these years was identical to the issue in A.Y. 2006-07. The Revenue did not file appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 and accepted the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld.CIT(A)”), therefore, the Revenue could not have taken a contrary view for these years. The said argument was laid by the assessee before this Tribunal during the appellate proceedings, contending that the Revenue cannot take inconsistent stand on an identical issue. In support of its contentions, the assessee had relied on the following decisions which were allegedly not considered by this Tribunal while passing the impugned order: a. Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (266 ITR 99)(SC) b. PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd. (448 ITR 732)(SC) c. PCIT v. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. (295 CTR 586)(SC) 2.1 The Ld. AR argued that non-consideration of case laws by the Tribunal relied on by the assessee during the appellate proceedings constitutes a mistake apparent from record as per the Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos 56 to 58 of 2025 Koya and Company Construction Ltd Page 3 of 6 decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT 295 ITR 466 and the full bench decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala Private Ltd vs. ACIT 330 ITR 243. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that there is an apparent mistake in accordance with section 254(2) of the Act in the order of this Tribunal and the same is required to be rectified by recalling the impugned order. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly opposed the MAs and submitted that the assessee is seeking review of the Tribunal order, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. In this regard, the Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 Taxmann.com 41 (SC) (dated 03.12.2021) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vrundavan Ginning & Oil Mill v. Asst. Registrar (2021) 126 Taxmann.com 227 (Guj.) (dated 18.03.2021). It was submitted that the assessee is seeking review of the impugned order of the Tribunal in the garb of rectification of mistake under section 254(2) of the Act, which is not permissible in accordance with the relied on judicial precedents and hence the MAs deserve dismissal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The contention of the Ld. AR that the Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos 56 to 58 of 2025 Koya and Company Construction Ltd Page 4 of 6 Tribunal failed to consider the judicial precedents cited during hearing is not acceptable. We have gone through the para nos.14 and 16 of the impugned order of this Tribunal which is to the following effect: “14. It is an admitted fact that the learned CIT (A) at page 30 of his order has mentioned that six contracts for the A.Y 2003-04 has not percolated to the A.Y 2006-07 and similarly, two contracts for the A.Y 2004-05 have not percolated to the A.Y 2006-07. Thus, the learned CIT (A) concluded that the contracts at Sl. Nos,. 1, 17, 18, 19, 21, 29, 32 and 34 have not been percolated for A.Y 2006-07. Whereas, the other contracts at Sl. Nos. 2, 16, 22, 28, 33 and 35 to 38 were percolated to A.Y 2006-07. These contracts have been examined by the learned CIT (A) in the appellate order passed for the A.Y 2006-07 pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal in ITA No.507/Hyd/2015 dated 27.06.2016. Against the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 09.02.2018, the Revenue has not preferred the appeal. Thus, for all purposes, the finding of the learned CIT (A) with respect to contract at Sl. Nos. 2-16, 22-28, 33 and 35 to 38 have attained finality. In view of the above, we dismiss the grounds of the Revenue pertaining to the contracts at Sl. Nos. 2-16, 22-28, 33 and 35 to 38. Furthermore, no specific ground has been raised challenging this finding of the fact by the learned CIT (A) before us. 15….. 16. It is the contention of the ld.AR that these contracts have been examined and were found to be parametria similar to the other contracts, which were examined for the A.Y 2006-07 and therefore, the relief was granted. In our considered opinion, the contracts at Sl. Nos. 1, 17, 18, 19, 21, 29, 32 and 34 were required to be independently examined afresh by reference to the terms of the contract and following the direction of the Tribunal in Ita No.507/Hyd/2015 (supra) and therefore, it is required by the learned CIT (A) to record a finding as to whether these contracts are the work contracts fulfilling the criteria as laid down under section 80IA or not?. Since the above exercise has not been done by the learned CIT (A) independently and he has merely relied upon the order of the Tribunal/order of the learned CIT (A) for A.Y 2006-07, in our view the same cannot be granted continence or permitted”. Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos 56 to 58 of 2025 Koya and Company Construction Ltd Page 5 of 6 5. A careful reading of para nos. 14 and 16 of the impugned order makes it clear that the Tribunal had consciously distinguished the projects involved in the present assessment years from those considered in A.Y. 2006-07 based on factual differences in contract conditions. The Tribunal has specifically given a finding that the contracts at sl. nos. 1, 17, 18, 19, 21, 29, 32 and 34 have not been percolated to A.Y 2006-07. Whereas the other contracts at sl. nos. 2-16, 22-28, 33 and 35-38 were percolated to A.Y 2006-07. Accordingly, the Tribunal on factual finding came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) for A.Y 2006-07, cannot be applied to the contracts at sl. nos. 1, 17, 18, 19, 21, 29, 32 and 34. However, with regard to contracts at sl. nos. 2-16, 22-28, 33 and 35-38, this Tribunal had accepted the findings given by the Ld. CIT (A) for A.Y 2006-07. Thus, the ratio laid down in the judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee (regarding uniformity of approach) does not apply, since the fact matrix is not identical. Further, it is well-settled that Tribunal cannot review its own order under section 254(2) of the Act. The scope of rectification is limited only to correcting an apparent, self-evident mistake, and not to re-examining findings already consciously arrived at. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that rectification cannot be used as a tool for review. Accordingly, we find no mistake in the impugned order of the Tribunal which is apparent from record warranting rectification. Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos 56 to 58 of 2025 Koya and Company Construction Ltd Page 6 of 6 6. In view of the above discussion, all the three M.As filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 14th November, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 M/s. Koya & Company Construction Ltd (formerly known as M/s. Koya and Company Construction (P) Ltd, No.12-2- 831/38/1, 72 MIGH Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad 500028 2 Dy. CIT, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "