M//S SBW LOGISTICS PVT LTD,RAIGAD V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL

MA 302/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. SBW Logistics Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting the disallowance of certain expenditures by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune. The expenditures were initially disallowed because the appellant failed to produce adequate evidence (vouchers/bills) to substantiate the claims. The Tribunal's earlier decision, which the appellant sought to recall, was based on the lack of documentation proving that the expenditures were related to business activities. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, emphasized that it only has the power to rectify mistakes that are apparent from the record and not to review its decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712370 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., 440 ITR 1
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RATNAKAR SHELAKE
• Assessee Lawyers: K. GOPAL; OM KANDALKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; TDS

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.302/PUN/2023 (arising out of ITA No.891/PUN/2022) िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year:2014-15 M/s.SBW Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Gut No.55, Plot No.T/5, Next to Bharat Shell Co., Khairne Village, MIDC-Taloja, Panvel Taluka, Raigad Dist – 410208. Maharashtra. V s The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle, Panvel. PAN: AAJCS6396R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri K.Gopal and Shri Om Kandalkar – AR’s Revenue by Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 02/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 31/07/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee for recalling the Tribunal Order in ITA No.891/PUN/2022 dated 24.05.2023. Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld.AR argued at length. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.302/PUN/2023 [A] 2 2.1 The relevant paragraphs of the Miscellaneous Application are reproduced as under : “vii. The Applicant submits that the abovementioned actions of the Hon'ble ITAT in disallowing the abovementioned expenditures by treating the same as non-genuine expenditures merely on account of non-production of evidence pertaining to the said payments represents a 'mistake apparent on record'. Thus, the Hon'ble ITAT is not justified in setting aside the decision of the NFAC as the impugned order is not in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, the same ought to be rectified. The Hon'ble ITAT treated the whole amount as not related to the business of the Applicant merely because no vouchers/bills were produced before the authorities. In doing so, the Hon'ble ITAT failed to appreciate the fact that the said repair works cannot be done without the labourers. The Hon'ble ITAT has failed to take into consideration the fact that, on the other hand, the Ld. A.O. has allowed the expenses in respect of Sand, cement, Dambar & stone powder, sand and khadi, etc. The Applicant submits that the said expenditure on raw materials would be futile if no labourers are hired/employed so as to utilise the said raw materials for the purpose of repairs and maintainace of the said godowns. The Applicant submits that the payments made to Rafiq Lilgar were made through account payee cheques. Further, the required TDS was also deducted by the Applicant on the payments made to the said party.The Applicant also submits that Rafiq Lilgar is assessed to tax under the P.A.N. AIIPL6440R. As mentioned earlier in para 2 above, the Hon'ble ITAT has disallowed the said expenditure without appreciating the fact that the said repair works cannot be done without the labourers, viz Rafiq Lilgar. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Hon'ble ITAT is unjustified, without any basis and the same is therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.” 3. We have carefully studied the Miscellaneous Petition. The ld.AR has not pointed out any specific mistake apparent from record which needs rectification. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.302/PUN/2023 [A] 3 4. Through the Miscellaneous Application, the Assessee wanted the Tribunal to review the order passed in ITA No.891/PUN/2022. Under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, only apparent mistake can be rectified. We have at length discussed the issues in our order dated 24.05.2023 in ITA No.891/PUN/2022. The Assessee has not brought out any specific mistake to our notice. During the hearing, we had specifically brought to the notice of the ld.AR that under section 254(2), ITAT do not have any power to review its own order. During the hearing, we also invited ld.AR’s attention to the interpretation of Section 254(2) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained Powers of ITAT under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., 440 ITR 1. The relevant observations are reproduced here as under : 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail goneinto the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailedsubmissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the orderde horssection 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify themistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction andwithin its powers it may pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot beaccepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, theremedy available to the Printed from counselvise.com MA No.302/PUN/2023 [A] 4 Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by theAssessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case.” 6. Thus, respectfully following Hon’ble Supreme Court(supra), we hold that there is no apparent mistake in the order in ITA No.891/PUN/2022 dated 24.05.2023. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. 7. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- MS.ASTHA CHANDRA Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 31 July, 2025/ SGR आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "