AI Insights
The case involves M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA No.120/Ahd/2024) against an earlier order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA No.69/Ahd/2023) concerning the Assessment Year 2019-20. The appellant contested the reliance on a CBDT order in the Tribunal's decision, claiming it was used without their knowledge and violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal examined the submissions and found that the CBDT order was duly communicated to the assessee and was part of the official record. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that the powers under Section 254(2) are limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and do not extend to re-hearing or reviewing the merits of the case.
Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472243 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
03-10-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
27-09-2024
Assessment Year
2019-2020
Appeal Filed On
05-09-2024
Judgement Text
" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ᭠यायपीठ , अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.120/Ahd/2024 in आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 69/AHD/2023 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Asstt. Year: 2019-2020 M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., G.F 6-9, Aman Tower, Suvas Colony, Fatehgunj, Vadodara-390002. PAN: AAACC8465A बनामVs. A.D.I.T, CPC, Bangalore, Present Jurisdiction, D.C.I.T, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. (अपीलाथᱮ /Appellant ( ᮧ᭜यथᱮ /Respondent) Assessee by : Shri MR Sahu, AR Revenue by : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27/09/2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: The present Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee to modify the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No.69/Ahd/2023 dated 16.07.2024 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. M.A No.120/Ahd/2024 In ITA No.69/Ahd/2023 Asst. Year 2019-20 2 2. The first objection of the assessee is that CBDT order No.225/132/2023/ITA-II/ dated 01.12.2023 relied upon in the order was without allowing any opportunity to the assessee. Shri M. R. Sahu, Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that there was certain mistakes in the order dated 16.07.2024, which were required to be rectified. He explained that while deciding the legal ground no.2 of the appeal, the Ld. Tribunal has relied upon the CBDT communication vide order No.225/132/2023/ITA-II/ dated 01.12.2023 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India whereby the time limit for processing the return of income for AY 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 with refund claim was extended till 31.01.2024. The Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT DR did not bring this order to the notice of the Tribunal in presence of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing on 18.06.2024 or on the date of clarification on 12.07.2024. According to the Ld. AR the order dated 01.12.2023 was used at back of the assessee without sharing a copy and no opportunity was provided to the assessee to raise objection/to file re-joinder before the Tribunal which was against the “Principle of Natural Justice”. He further submitted that the order dated 01.12.2023 was not applicable to the assessee as the said order was applicable for non-scrutiny cases where the return was validly filed after due date and not processed due to reason not attributable to the assessee. The Ld. AR has also challenged the validity of the Circular/Order dated 01.12.2023 issued by the CBDT. 3. Per contra, Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR submitted that there was no violation of Principle of Natural Justice as the order dated 01.12.2023 of CBDT was part of the paper book filed by the Department on 05.01.2024, a copy of which was also provided to the assessee. M.A No.120/Ahd/2024 In ITA No.69/Ahd/2023 Asst. Year 2019-20 3 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is found that the Revenue had filed a letter dated 05.01.2024 with the subject “Written submission in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.69/Ahd/2023 for AY 2019-20 - regarding” which was submitted by Sh. Sanjeev Jain, CIT. DR on Rotation Duty, in which the said CBDT order No.225/132/2023/ITA-11, dated 01.12.2023 was reproduced verbatim. A copy of the said order was also filed separately which is available on record. Thus, the CBDT order dated 01.12.2023 was already brought on record by the Revenue vide letter dated 05.01.2024, a copy of which was also provided to the assessee. Under the circumstances, the contention of the assessee that the said CBDT order dated 01.12.2023 was used at the back of the assessee without sharing a copy and without providing any opportunity to the assessee is not found correct. The objection raised by the assessee is found to be without any merit. We do not find any violation of the Principle of Natural Justice as CBDT Circular dated 01.12.2023 was brought to knowledge of the assessee much before the final date of hearing. Under the circumstances the contention of the assessee that the said order was not pointed out at the time of hearing on 18.06.2024 and 12.07.2024, is irrelevant. This order was already part of the record and the assessee had not made any submission in this respect at any stage. The other objections of the assessee that the said order dated 01.12.2023 was not applicable to the assessee or that by relying on the said order the Revenue has been allowed second inning to reprocess the return or that the said order overrides the law set by the Supreme Court etc. are beyond the scope of rectification stipulated u/s 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the objection as taken by the assessee is rejected. M.A No.120/Ahd/2024 In ITA No.69/Ahd/2023 Asst. Year 2019-20 4 5. The second objection of the assessee is that the communication vide reference No. CPC/1920/G22/2013189988 dated 30.01.2020, which was reproduced in the order dated 16.07.2024, was neither shared nor a copy was provided to the assessee either by CIT DR or by the Tribunal on the date of hearing on 18.06.2024 or on the date of clarification on 12.07.2024. According to the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the communication dated 30.01.2020 was used at the back of the assessee which was against the Principle of Natural Justice 6. Per Contra, Ld. Sr. DR Shri Rignesh Das, submitted that this communication was also part of the paper book filed by the Revenue which was shared with the assessee. He further submitted that this was not a third party or independent evidence but only a copy of the communication sent by the CPC to the assessee, which was always available with the assessee. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. As mentioned in para no.21 of the order dated 16.07.2024, the Revenue had filed a paper book wherein the copy of “Dashboard: User Profile Administration”, which contains details of action taken by the CPC on the return of the assessee for AY 2019-20, was furnished. It was found from the said dashboard sheet that a communication was sent to the assessee vide Reference no. CPC/1920/G- 22/20131819988 dated 30.12.2020 on the email ID accounts@checkmtservices.com. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee in the course of hearing on 12.07.2024 and the assessee had also raised certain objection pertaining to the said communication, which was discussed in our order. Under the circumstances the assessee cannot take a plea that the said communication was not brought to the notice or that it M.A No.120/Ahd/2024 In ITA No.69/Ahd/2023 Asst. Year 2019-20 5 was used behind its back. The actual communication was part of paper book filed by the Revenue which was reproduced in the order. It was not that it was an independent or third party evidence filed by the Revenue. It was only a copy of the communication sent by the CPC to the assessee which was available with the assessee or accessible to the assessee on the e- portal of the Department. Rather the assessee had not brought this communication to the notice of the Tribunal and contended that no such communication was received. The objection of the assessee regarding the email ID on which this communication was sent by the CPC, was also discussed in detail in our order. We therefore, do not find any mistake in the order dated 16.07.2022 and the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee in this respect is rejected. 8. In view of the above facts we don’t find any mistake apparent from record in the order dated 16.07.2024. By filing the present Misc. application the assessee has subtly requested to recall the order and to allow another opportunity of being heard on the issues which have all been considered in the order. The provision of Section 254(2) of the Act is intended to only rectify the mistake apparent from the records and we don’t find any such mistake apparent in the order. The power of Section 254(2) of the Act cannot be utilized to recall and review the order on its merit or to rehear the matter to consider additional facts or legal issues. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Limited (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) has categorically held as under: “3.2 Having gone through both the orders passed by the ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier M.A No.120/Ahd/2024 In ITA No.69/Ahd/2023 Asst. Year 2019-20 6 order dated 06.09.2013 is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. While allowing the application under Section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013, it appears that the ITAT has re-heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record only. Therefore, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. While considering the application under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. 4. In the present case, a detailed order was passed by the ITAT when it passed an order on 06.09.2013, by which the ITAT held in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, the said order could not have been recalled by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. If the Assessee was of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous, either on facts or in law, in that case, the only remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer the appeal before the High Court, which as such was already filed by the Assessee before the High Court, which the Assessee withdrew after the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013. Therefore, as such, the order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 which has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal conferred under Section 254 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 is unsustainable, which ought to have been set aside by the High Court. 9. Considering the totality of the facts, the M.A. filed by the assessee is required to be dismissed for the reasons as discussed above and also on account of judicial discipline following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom Ltd., (supra). M.A No.120/Ahd/2024 In ITA No.69/Ahd/2023 Asst. Year 2019-20 7 10. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03rd October, 2024 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, ᳰदनांक/Dated 03/10/2024 Manish, Sr. PS "
