Vijay Channabasav Suttatti, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 13, Pune

MA 14/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, Vijay Channabasav Suttatti, seeking to recall an earlier order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had dismissed his appeal. The dismissal was based on alleged incorrect observations in the Tribunal's previous order. The assessee argued that these errors rendered the order rectifiable under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing the Supreme Court's decision in 'Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs CIT'. However, the Departmental Representative countered this by referencing a different Supreme Court decision, 'Kumar Jagdishchandra Sinha Vs CIT', and argued that the Tribunal's original decision was correct and left no scope for rectification. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant legal precedents, dismissed the MA, stating that it could not reappreciate facts or review its findings under the guise of rectification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136295 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs CIT, Kumar Jagdishchandra Sinha Vs CIT, CIT Vs Ramesh Electric and Trading Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “बी” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S S VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / MA No. 014/PUN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.825/PUN/2018) निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Vijay Channabasav Suttatti Mulbery Garden, Magarpatta City, Pune. PAN:ACMPS4486Q . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Applicant बनाम / V/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-13, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Kishore Phadke Revenue by : Mr Ramnath P Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 04/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 22/08/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; By the present Miscellaneous Application [for short ‘MA’] the assessee sought our indulgence for recalling the order of this Tribunal passed u/s 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] while disposing of assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 825/PUN/2018 dt. 09/09/2022 MA No. 014/PUN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.825/PUN/2018) ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4 2. Through this MA, the assessee alleges that, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing his appeal based on incorrect observation noted in para-10-1 st line and para-10-1 st line, for the reason order became erroneous and rendered itself rectifiable u/s 254(2) of the Act. To drive home this contention the Ld. AR toughly relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs CIT’ reported in 295 ITR 466. Au contraire, the Ld. DR Mr Murkunde stated that, after due consideration of facts, in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Kumar Jagdishchandra Sinha Vs CIT’ reported in 220 ITR 67, the Tribunal came to dismiss the appeal, thus leaving no scope for rectification. Further drawing our attention to ultimate prayer of the assessee aimed at remand back the file to Ld. AO; Mr Murkunde contended that, whole exercise of the assessee is to seek review without there being any rectifiable mistake brought to the notice. 3. Heard rival contentions of both parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short ‘ITAT, Rules’] perused the MA and considered prayer thereof in the light of settled legal position which are forewarned to rival parties. MA No. 014/PUN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.825/PUN/2018) ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4 4. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the contents of present MA, we are unable to comprehend the very basis on which the same has been filed before us, as we see apparent error in 1 st line of para-10 and 1 st line of Para-10. Apropos, seeking of the assessee of our indulgence to reappreciate the facts for adjudicating the issue a fresh, we find it absolutely beyond our jurisdiction as to on what basis the same could be done in the garb of MA. We say so, for the reason that the scope of an application filed under sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Act is confined to rectification of a mistake which is glaring, apparent, patent or obvious from the record, and not for the purpose of reappreciating facts for reviewing its own order or adjudicating certain issues afresh. In fact, we would not hesitate to state that the assessee in the garb of present MA filed u/s 254(2) of the Act is trying to seek our indulgence for re-adjudicating issues on merits. 5. In this context, it shall be pertinent to quote the decision rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in ‘CIT Vs Ramesh Electric and Trading Co.’ reported in 203 ITR 497, their lordships in a similar facts and circumstance, have categorically held that, ‘tribunal can only rectify the MA No. 014/PUN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.825/PUN/2018) ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4 alleged mistakes which are apparent from record and cannot reappreciate the evidence and review its findings. . . ‘. 6. The assessee seeking recalling of Tribunal’s order has also placed strong reliance on Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs CIT’ (supra). The said decision is squarely out of context and misplaced one, since it was rendered in context of recalling of order by the Tribunal for not considering decision of Co-ordinate bench relied upon. 7. In nutshell, in our considered view, the present MA of the assessee filed u/s 254(2) of the Act being devoid and bereft of any merit, thus liable to the dismissed in the absence of any rectifiable mistake brought to our notice. 8. In result, the MA of the assessee is DISMISSED. U/r 34 of ITAT Rules, the order is pronounced in the open court on this Tuesday 22 nd day of August, 2023. -S/d- -S/d- S S VISWANETHRA RAVI G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / PUNE ; दििधंक / Dated : 22 nd day of August, 2023. आिेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT (IT/TP), Pune 4. The CIT(A) Concerned, Pune 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘B’, Pune 6.गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आिेशधिपसधर / By Order वररष्ठ निजऩ सनिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपऩलऩय न्यधयधनर्करण, पपणे / ITAT, Pune.