M/S DOSTI REALTY LIMITED(FORMERLY DOSTI LAND DEVELOPER PVT LTD ON AMALGAMATION,MUMBAI V. DCIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

MA 263/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dosti Realty Limited, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, seeking to recall an earlier order due to an oversight in adjudicating additional grounds related to the computation under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and recalled the order to address the unadjudicated ground concerning the permissible addition under section 14A read with Rule 8D, which the assessee contended should not exceed Rs. 60,543.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26501 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Sakiri Vasu V State of UP and others, ITO Cannanore V.M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, Union of India V paras Laminates, Reserve Bank of India V Peerless General Finance and investment Co. Ltd., Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chariman Gujarat Maritime Board V Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu, J.K Synthetics Ltd. V collector of Central Excise, State of Karnataka V Vishwabharti House Building Co-op Society
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: . K. SHIVARAM
• Keywords: Set aside; Rule 8D
• Section: 254(2); 14A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No. 263/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 4559/M/2023) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Dosti Realty Limited 1st Floor, Lawrence & Mayo House, 276, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai-400001. Vs. DCIT-1(1)(1) 533, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AAACCD7714K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue by Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 17/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This Miscellaneous Application has been moved u/s. 254(2) of the IT Act on behalf of the applicant/appellant with a prayer, either to set aside or recall the order dated 24.07.2024 passed in ITA No. 4559/MUM/2023 for A.Y. 2014-15 on the ground that there is an error apparent on record as the Tribunal has not adjudicated the grounds no. 2, 3 and additional grounds raised by the assessee with respect to the computation. MA no.263/MUM/2024 Dosti Realty Limited 2 2. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for the applicant/appellant and learned DR for the opposite party/respondent. 3. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 shows that on the basis of the grounds raised by assessee, vide para 3 of the order in question dated 24.07.2024, the main point for consideration under appeal was framed vide para 6 r/w para 9 of the Tribunal’s order in question. It is further noticed that assessee’s submissions along with referred citations were made part of para 7 of the order in question. Considering the submission of both the parties and the available material on record, speaking order was passed and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed on merits. However, the Tribunal lost sight of assessee’s application dated 10.05.2024, seeking permission to raise the additional ground. The additional ground raised by the assessee was as under: “ The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that addition u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed Rs. 60,543/- i.e. 5% of Employee benefit expenses and other expenses aggregating to Rs. 12,10,867/- and hence the addition u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed Rs. 60,543/-” 4. The question, thus, arises as to whether this Tribunal can recall its said order for limited purpose of adjudicating the aforesaid additional ground raised by the assessee to which this Tribunal lost sight of. The Tribunal, having the trappings of the court, may also exercise the incidental powers under the doctrine of implied authority in addition to what has been provided u/s. 254(2) of the IT Act, to ensure the proper doing of a thing. This doctrine has been reaffirmed time and again by Hon’ble Supreme Court in many cases i.e Sakiri Vasu V State of UP and others, MA no.263/MUM/2024 Dosti Realty Limited 3 2008(60) ACC 689(SC), ITO Cannanore V.M.K. Mohammed Kunhi AIR 1969 SC 430, Union of India V paras Laminates, AIR 1991 SC 696, Reserve Bank of India V Peerless General Finance and investment Co. Ltd. AR 1996 SC 646, Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chariman Gujarat Maritime Board V Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu, 1996(11) SCC23, J.K Synthetics Ltd. V collector of Central Excise AIR 1996 SC 3527 and State of Karnataka V Vishwabharti House Building Co-op Society 2003(2) SCC 412. 5. In order to ensure the proper adjudication of the assessee’s additional unadjudicated ground, this Tribunal has the authority to pass appropriate order u/s. 254(2) of the IT Act and by resorting to the doctrine of implied authority. The order in question dated 24.07.2024 is accordingly recalled to the limited extent of adjudicating the additional unadjudicated ground raised by the assessee during the second appellate proceedings. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous application is thus allowed accordingly. Registry is directed to put up the matter with ITA No. 4559/MUM/2023 before the regular bench as per rules. Order pronounced in open court on 22.01.2025. Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 22/01/2025 Anandi Nambi, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. MA no.263/MUM/2024 Dosti Realty Limited 4 BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai //True Copy// "