M/S. PIMPRI- CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PUNE V. JT.. CIT RG-10 PUNE, PUNE

MA 291/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority (the assessee) filing Miscellaneous Applications against the JCIT, Pune, concerning the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee sought rectification or recall of the Tribunal's earlier order, claiming that the Tribunal had overlooked relevant provisions of the MRTP Act and the Land Disposal Rules, and had not considered a decision from the Honble MP High Court which was pertinent to the case. The Tribunal, however, found that the decision from the MP High Court was not available at the time of the original hearing and thus could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal dismissed the MAs, stating that the arguments presented were essentially a request to review the Tribunal's own earlier decision, which is not allowed under the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792144 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf, Saurashtra Stock Exchange
• Laws Referred To: MRTP Act, Land Disposal Rules, IT Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAUMYA PANDEY JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATHMESH BORKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Revision of order

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA Nos.290 & 291/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA Nos.613 & 614/PUN/2011) Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority Sector 26, Pradhikaran, Pune – 411044 Vs. JCIT, Range – 10, Pune PAN: AAALP0279Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prathmesh Borkar Department by : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 21-11-2025 Date of pronouncement : 09-12-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The assessee through these Miscellaneous Applications requests the Tribunal to rectify / recall the order passed by the Tribunal for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to the contents of the Miscellaneous Applications submitted that the Tribunal while dismissing the appeals of the assessee has inadvertently overlooked the provisions of MRTP Act and the Land Disposal Rules which were available on record. This has resulted in incorrect ascertainment of the rights and duties of the parties. Further, the decision Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA Nos.290 & 291/PUN/2022 of Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 191 taxmann.com 191 which was passed on 06.09.2018 was not followed by the Tribunal while deciding the matter. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf reported in (1978) 113 ITR 589 (Bom), he submitted that since the decision of Hon’ble MP High Court being a solidary judgment was available on the date f passing of the order on the treatment of such leases by the Government entities and there being no other contradictory judgment of any other High Court the same would be binding on all the Tribunals in the country. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Stock Exchange reported in (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), he submitted that non-consideration of a decision of jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court is a mistake apparent from record which can be rectified u/s 254(2) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that since the Tribunal while deciding the issue has not followed the decision of Hon’ble MP High Court cited (supra), the order of the Tribunal should be rectified and the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed. In his alternate contention he submitted that the order of the Tribunal be recalled for fresh adjudication. 3. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the decision of Hon’ble MP High Court was never brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of hearing since the same was not available on that date, therefore, the said decision could not have been followed. Further, the issue before the Tribunal was regarding the validity of 263 proceedings. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA Nos.290 & 291/PUN/2022 failed to make proper enquiries, the Tribunal in a detailed speaking order upheld the 263 proceedings initiated by the Ld. CIT. He submitted that the assessee through these MAs is trying to persuade the Bench to modify the order which amounts to review of its own order by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law. He accordingly submitted that the MAs filed by the assessee should be dismissed. 4. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. We find the Ld. CIT in the instant case has invoked his jurisdictional powers u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper enquiry on various issues mentioned in the show cause notice which have got great bearing on the quantification of taxable income of the assessee. Due to such lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT has held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We find the Tribunal, based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, in a detailed speaking order has upheld the 263 proceedings. A perusal of the contents of the MAs filed by the assessee shows that the assessee is trying to persuade the Tribunal to take a contrary view than the view already taken by the Bench which amounts to review of its own order by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law. Whatever arguments the assessee is now making can be made before the Assessing Officer at the time of set aside proceedings. Further, when the decision of Hon’ble MP High Court was not cited before the Bench since the same was not available on the date of hearing, therefore, it cannot be said that non-consideration of the decision not cited before the Bench and which was pronounced after the hearing of Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA Nos.290 & 291/PUN/2022 the appeal shall constitute a mistake apparent from record. In absence of any apparent error pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the detailed speaking order of the Tribunal, we do not find any merit in the MAs filed by the assessee. Accordingly, both the MAs are dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5. In the result, both the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 9th December, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. 5. The Pr. CIT concerned DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA Nos.290 & 291/PUN/2022 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 09.12.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 09.12.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "