Ravi Sellappan, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-7, Pune

MA 150/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6209 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.150/PUN./2023 Arising out of I.T.A.No.1277/PUN./2017 - Assessment Year 2008-2009 Mr. Ravi Sellappan, Flat No.6, Building No.44, Hermes Paras Cooperative Housing Society, Pune. PIN 411 006. PAN AEKPS0589J vs. The ACIT, Circle-7, Aaykar Sadan, Room No.316, 3 rd Floor, Bodhi Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune. PIN 411 037 (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rahul Sarda For Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 15.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s miscellaneous application filed u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] seeks to recall the tribunal’s order dated 05.01.2023 allowing the Revenue’s corresponding main appeal I.T.A.No.1277/ PUN./2017. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned counsel representing assessee first of all submits that this tribunal has committed an apparent mistake on record whilst not entertaining the assessee’s Rule 27 2 M.A.No.150/PUN./2023 petition raising the legal issue of validity of sec.148 reopening. He fails to dispute that our order in para 4.4 has duly held the same to be not maintainable once not emanating from the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion having decided the issue against him. That being the case, we quote ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC); that the purpose of sec.254(2) rectification proceedings is only to correct an apparent mistake than taking recourse to roving enquiries. The assessee’s first and foremost argument fails therefore. Rejected accordingly. 3. Learned counsel next submitted that the Revenue had not quoted the case law of the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB); Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd., vs. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) which have been invoked at the tribunal’s behest on it’s own. We find that there is change in counsel engaged by the assessee and therefore, there is no clarity as to what had transpired at earlier date of main case hearing. Be that as it may, all these judicial precedents have been duly discussed and considered in our detailed discussion which hardly gives any rise to an apparent mistake on record. Rejected accordingly. 3 M.A.No.150/PUN./2023 4. Learned counsel’s next submission touches with the various facts of the assessee’s contractual income involving the other entity M/s. Samcon Infrastructure Corp. We wish to make it clear that our impugned order has treated the sum in question forming the Revenue’s substantive grievance seeking to revive the addition of Rs.6,56,89,219/- as unexplained and therefore, liable to be added. We thus deem it appropriate not to go for any detailed roving enquiries in the instant sec.254(2) rectification proceedings. Rejected accordingly. 5. The assessee’s next submission is that he had also filed cross-appeal vide ITA.No.180/PUN./2022 as well as cross-objection no.15/PUN./2022 in the instant main appeal which had to be withdrawn with liberty to raise all the corresponding submissions as per law. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant miscellaneous application as the said former order does not form subject matter of our decision in hand. Rejected accordingly. 6. Learned counsel’s next submission also touches merits of the impugned addition of Rs.6,56,89,219/- treated as unexplained work-in-progress in our order. We again wish to reiterate our limitation in touching upon such an issue by way of detailed roving enquiries in view of the foregoing judicial precedents (supra), as our impugned order has already discussed the issue at length. Rejected accordingly. 4 M.A.No.150/PUN./2023 7. Learned counsel further submits that our impugned order could not even have invoked u/sec.153(6) of the Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He fails to dispute that our order has nowhere confirmed the impugned addition under the foregoing statutory provision. Rejected accordingly. 8. Learned counsel lastly submits that we have not considered the assessee’s written submissions. We quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s landmark decision in CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) that once we have discussed the entire issue at length, assuming but not accepting, our alleged failure in not dealing with some of the written submissions would hardly form a ground to invoke the impugned sec.254(2) rectification jurisdiction. Rejected accordingly. 9. We thus accept the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting our impugned order in very terms. 10. This assessee’s miscellaneous application is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.10.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 25 th October, 2023 VBP/- 5 M.A.No.150/PUN./2023 Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune-5, Praptikar Sadan 60/61, Erandwane Karve Road, Pune – 411 004. 4. The Pr. CIT(A), Pune-4, Pune. 5. D.R. ITAT – ‘A’ Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.