Income-Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Pune V. Smt Prabhavati Balasaheb Kawade L/H of Late Shri Balasheb Bapusaheb Kawade, Pune

MA 10/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4911 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NITIN PATIL LD.
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 2 BEFORE HON’BLE SMT ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल स ं . / MA No. 10/PUN/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 14/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(1), Pune . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Applicant बिधम / V/s Smt. Prabhavati Balasaheb Kawade, L/H.Of Late Balasaheb Bapusaheb Kawade, Shah Khandelwal & Jain & Associates, Level-3, Riverside Business Bay, Wellesley Rd., Pune – 411 001 PAN: DLUPK3690C . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by: None for the Assessee Revenue by : Mr Nitin Patil [‘Ld. DR’] स ु नवाईकीतारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 26/07/2024 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; By the present Miscellaneous application [for short ‘MA’], the Revenue seeks to recall the order of this Tribunal’s Order passed u/s 254(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] in 14/PUN/2021 dt. 08/06/2023 relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. In absence of respondent proceeded u/r 25 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short ‘ITAT-Rules’] and heard the Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules perused the material placed on records. Smt. Prabhavati Balasaheb Kawade MA No. 10/PUN/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 14/PUN/2021 ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 2 3. We note that, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in ‘CIT Vs Brandix Mauritius Holding Ltd.’ [2023, 149 Taxmann.com 238] the Tribunal allowed the main appeal filed by the assessee with the cemented findings that, ‘the impugned order communicated to the assessee was neither bearing the signature of Ld. CIT(A) nor the Document Identification Number [for short ‘DIN’]. 4. The position is indifferent even today, however the Revenue by this MA tried to canvass that, in view of the interim stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the former order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra), the Tribunal’s decision tantamount to mistake apparent on record hence deserves to be recalled. Except former plea, no other apparent mistake which could be rectified u/s 254(2) of the Act was brought to our notice by the Revenue. 5. It shall suffice to state that, the order of this tribunal was passed prior to aforestated stay came into effect, therefore as on the date of pronouncement of Tribunal’s order the binding precedents ‘CIT Vs Brandix Mauritius Holding Ltd.’ (supra) was in force, thus leaving no scope of error capable of rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act. For the reasons we see no merits in the plea of the Revenue, therefore rejected. 6. In result the present MA of the Revenue stands DISMISSED. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Wednesday 14th day of August, 2024. -S/d- -S/d- ASTHA CHANDRA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER प ु णे/ PUNE ; ददना ां क / Dated : 14th day of August, 2024. आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT-1, Pune(MH-India) 4. The CIT(A)-5, Pune (MH-India) 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘B’, Pune 6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशान ु सार / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादधकरण, प ु णे / ITAT, Pune.