M/S. SHREYA CREDIT & CAPITAL P. LTD.,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CEMTRAL CIRCLE7(2), MUMBAI

MA 95/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Shreyans Credit and Capital Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The original order was passed under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which pertains to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. However, the Tribunal held that the application was not maintainable as it was filed against an order under section 254(2), whereas the correct procedure would have been to file under section 254(1). The Tribunal's decision was based on the statutory provisions that allow for rectification of mistakes only under section 254(1) and not section 254(2).

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471364 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASIF KAR MALI
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK MODI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA No. 95/MUM/2024 (Arising out of MA No. 644/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s Shreyans Credit and Capital Pvt. Ltd. Kothi Bazar, Betul 460001. Vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-7(2), Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAMCS 7878 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Abhishek Modi Revenue by : Mr. Asif Karmali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25/10/2024 Date of pronouncement : 21/11/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This Miscellaneous Application has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No. 644/Mum/2023 arising from ITA No. 1644/Mum/2020 for assessment year 2015-16. 2. We have heard the Miscellaneous Application has been preferred against order passed by the Tribunal short ‘the Act’), whereas u/s 254(2) Miscellaneous Application can be u/s 254(1) of the Act. The relevant provision of section 254(2) is reproduced as under: “254(1) ……………….. 254(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub make such amendment if the mistake is brough assessee or the [Assessing Officer] Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: [Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub section on or after the 1st fee of fifty rupees.] 2.1 In view of the above, preferred against order u/s 254(1) of the Act and against order passed u/s 254(2) of the Act, therefore application filed by the assessee against order passed u/s 254(2) the Act is not maintainable. Accordingly, same is rejected. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Shreyans Credit and Capital Pvt. Ltd. We have heard rival submission of the parties. We find that the Miscellaneous Application has been preferred against order passed by the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in whereas u/s 254(2) of the Act prescribe that a Miscellaneous Application can be preferred against order passed u/s 254(1) of the Act. The relevant provision of section 254(2) is under: “254(1) ……………….. The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the [Assessing Officer] Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: [Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub section on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees.]” In view of the above, miscellaneous application preferred against order u/s 254(1) of the Act and can’t be preferred against order passed u/s 254(2) of the Act, therefore plication filed by the assessee against order passed u/s 254(2) is not maintainable. Accordingly, same is rejected. nced in the open Court on 21/11 - Sd/ RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M/s Shreyans Credit and Capital Pvt. Ltd. 2 MA No. 95/MUM/2024 rival submission of the parties. We find that the Miscellaneous Application has been preferred against order tax Act, 1961 (in of the Act prescribe that a preferred against order passed u/s 254(1) of the Act. The relevant provision of section 254(2) is The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the section (1), and shall t to its notice by the Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the ss the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: [Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub- day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a miscellaneous application can be can’t be preferred against order passed u/s 254(2) of the Act, therefore this plication filed by the assessee against order passed u/s 254(2) of is not maintainable. Accordingly, same is rejected. /11/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 21/11/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Shreyans Credit and Capital Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Shreyans Credit and Capital Pvt. Ltd. 3 MA No. 95/MUM/2024 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "