LUMEN IT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

MA 75/BANG/2025

AI Insights

M/s. Lumen IT India Private Limited filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall an earlier ITAT order due to apparent mistakes regarding the non-adjudication of two critical legal grounds: the limitation period of the assessment order and the non-compliance with mandatory DIN requirements for communications issued by the Income-tax authorities post-1st October 2019. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and allowed the application, directing a fresh adjudication on the mentioned grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831272 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2022) 444 ITR 537 (Mad.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N. BALUSAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: AJIT TONALI
• Keywords: Validity of assessment

Judgement Text

"MA No.75/Bang/2025 M/s. Lumen IT India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.75/Bang/2025 (Arising out of IT(TP)A No.1334/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Lumen IT India Private Limited Salarapuria Touchstone 4th Floor, Sy.No.15/1A & 14P7 Kadubeesanahalli Varthur Hobli Bangalore 560 103 PAN NO : AAHCS7683M Vs. DCIT Circle4(1)(1) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Ajit Tonali, A.R. Respondent by : Sri N. Balusamy, D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) is filed by the assessee seeking to recall the order passed by the ITAT in IT(TP)A No.1334/Bang/2024 dated 16.5.2025 on the reasoning that there is a mistake apparent in the order of the ITAT. 2. The assessee in the present miscellaneous application submitted that the assessee had specifically challenged the validity of the final assessment order on the ground that it was barred by limitation u/s 153 of the Act by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2022) 444 ITR 537 (Mad.) and accordingly prayed that Printed from counselvise.com MA No.75/Bang/2025 M/s. Lumen IT India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 the final order dated 16.5.2024 was beyond the permissible statutory time limit and hence void-ab-initio. Further, the assessee in its MA application also submitted that the assessee had also raised a specific ground challenging the validity of assessment proceedings for non-compliance with the mandatory DIN requirements. The CBDT has made it compulsory that every communication or order issued by the Income-tax authorities post 1st October, 2019 should carry a system generated DIN failing which such document shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued as per the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.8.2019. The assessee in its MA application had submitted that the Tribunal while passing the order in IT(TP)A No.1334/Bang/2024 dated 16.5.2025 had not adjudicated the above two legal grounds along with the certain other grounds on merits as raised by the assessee company and therefore, non-adjudication of these grounds is an apparent mistake, which needs to be rectified under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. 3. The ld. D.R. on the other hand fairly conceded that the Tribunal while passing the order on 16/05/2025 had inadvertently not adjudicated the limitation ground as well as DIN ground as raised by the assessee company. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The provisions of section 254(2) of the Act empower the ITAT to rectify any type of mistake in its order provided it should be apparent from the record. The mistake apparent from the record refers to those errors or inconsistency which is evident from the face of the document/order of the authority in respect of which no two views/opinions are possible. Coming to the fact of the case on hand, admittedly, the Tribunal had inadvertently not adjudicated the limitation ground as well as DIN ground as raised by the assessee in IT(TP)A No.1334/Bang/2024 and therefore, in our Printed from counselvise.com MA No.75/Bang/2025 M/s. Lumen IT India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 considered view, there is a clear mistake apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, we in exercise our power granted u/s 254(2) of the Act, recall the order passed by the ITAT dated 16.5.2025 for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Accordingly, the registry is directed to restore the appeal of the assessee at its original number and fix the same along with the bunch of cases fixed for hearing on 24.2.2026 on the same issues. The date of hearing may be intimated to the parties by issuing separate notice. Hence, the MA filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th Jan, 2026 Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 20th Jan, 2026. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "