Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315729 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
17-05-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
F
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Judgement Text
"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA Nos.250, 251 & 252/Del/2024 (arising in ITA Nos.873, 874 & 875/DEL/2018) (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Smt. Kusum Lata, vs. DCIT, Central Circle, A – 38, Sector 27, Noida. Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN: AAQPL2829Q) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT/ASSESSEE BY : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.05.2025 Date of Order : 16.05.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. These misc. applications are filed by the applicant/assessee against the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.873 to 875/Del/.2018 dated 30.04.2024 for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12. 2. These misc. applications are filed to rectify the mistake apparent on record. It was submitted that the assessee has only argued the matter on jurisdictional and technical issues but the ITAT decided the issues on merits which were not argued by the assessee. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessee is not 2 MA Nos.250 to 252/Del/2025 provided with an opportunity of hearing on ground nos.3 & 4 in the aforesaid appeals. Hence, it is requested that the order may be recalled to the extent of hearing ground nos.3 & 4. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee insisted that he has argued the grounds raised by the assessee on jurisdictional issue and technical issues and not argued relating to ground nos.3 & 4 which is the issue taken by the assessee on merits. He submitted that the Bench has decided the issue on merits without hearing the plea of the assessee on merits. He prayed that no doubt the Bench has decided the technical issues against the assessee, be that as it may be, assessee should be given an opportunity to represent its case on merits and he prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to submit the issue on merits. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue also fairly accepted that the issue raised by the assessee in ground nos.3 & 4 are not heard. 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After considering the above plea of the assessee, we cross-verified the Register and found that assessee has made detailed submissions only on jurisdictional and technical issue by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. reported in 454 ITR 212 and other related cases and have not heard on merits. Since it is a mistake apparent on record we deem it fit to recall the order with a limited purpose to hear the 3 MA Nos.250 to 252/Del/2025 issue raised by the assessee in ground nos.3 & 4. Accordingly, we recall the order to the limited purpose of hearing ground nos.3 & 4 only in the appeals being ITA Nos.873 to 875/Del/2018 and direct the Registry to list the matter in due course. The same may be fixed for hearing after informing both the parties. 6. In the result, the misc. application of the assessee is allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of May, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: .05.2025 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "
AI Insights
The case involves Smt. Kusum Lata, the applicant/assessee, who filed miscellaneous applications against the order of the ITAT dated 30.04.2024 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12. The applications were filed to rectify what was claimed to be a mistake apparent on record, specifically that the Tribunal had decided on merits without hearing the assessee's arguments on those grounds. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions and the record, agreed that the issues raised in ground nos.3 & 4 were not addressed in the previous hearings and decided to recall the order to allow for a hearing on these merits.
