LATE RAJA BABU NIMMATOORI, L/R ANUDEEP NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

MA 11/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anudeep Nimmatoori, the applicant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 14.08.2024 concerning the assessment year 2016-2017. The application sought to recall the Tribunal's earlier decision, arguing that there was a mistake apparent on the record. However, the Tribunal, after reviewing the application and the original order, concluded that the issues raised were already thoroughly discussed and decided upon in the original order. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. to reinforce that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectifying apparent mistakes and does not extend to reviewing decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360523 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T.SUNIL GOWTHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.11/Hyd./2025 Arising out of ITA.No.589/Hyd/2022 - Assessment Year 2016-2017 Anudeep Nimmatoori L.R. s/o. late Raja Babu Nimmatoori, Hyderabad – 500 013. State of Telangana. PAN ACSPN1662R vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA P Murali Mohan Rao For Revenue : Shri T. Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 16.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : The above Miscellaneous Application M.A.No.11/ Hyd./2025 has been filed by the assessee u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] seeking for recall of the common order of the Tribunal dated 14.08.2024 passed in ITA.No.589/Hyd./2022, for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2 M.A.No.11/Hyd./2025 2. The contents of the Miscellaneous Application are as under : 3 M.A.No.11/Hyd./2025 4 M.A.No.11/Hyd./2025 3. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant contents of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee u/sec.254(2) of the Act in light of the consolidated order of the Tribunal in ITA.No.589/Hyd./2022 dated 14.08.2024 and after considering the relevant pleadings of the assessee in his petition, we find that the assessee has failed to make-out a case of prima facie mistake apparent on record from the order of the Tribunal which is evident from the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para-79 of the order where the issue has been thoroughly discussed in light of relevant facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer along with arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, what is canvassed in the present Miscellaneous Application is to review the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the given facts of the case, but, not a case of mistake apparent on record which could be rectified u/sec.254(2) of the Act. Further, the scope of provisions of sec.254(2) of the Act is very limited to the extent of rectifying the apparent mistakes that it must be something which 5 M.A.No.11/Hyd./2025 appears ex-facie and incapable of argument and debate. The expression ‘mistake apparent on the record’ means a mistake either clerical or grammatical or arithmetical or of like nature, which can be detected without there being any necessity to re-argue the matter or to re-appraise the facts as appearing from the records. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) held that, in case the findings by the Tribunal is incorrect, then, the course of action for the assessee is to challenge the finding of the Tribunal before the High Court, but, under the garb of rectification, the assessee cannot seek for review of the decision rendered by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, there is no merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dated 14.08.2024 in ITA.No.589/Hyd./2022. Thus, we reject the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. 6 M.A.No.11/Hyd./2025 4. In the result, Miscellaneous Application Miscellaneous Application.No.11/Hyd./2025 of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 20th May, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. Anudeep Nimmatoori L.R. s/o. late Raja Babu Nimmatoori, Hyderabad – 500 013. C/o. P. Murali & Co. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/1/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082. 2. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad. 3. The CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad. 4. Pr. CIT, Central, Hyderabad 5. The DR ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. /By Order// //True Copy// "