Ashok Vijaykumar Kotecha, Jalgaon V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Nashik

MA 351/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application by Ashok Vijaykumar Kotecha, seeking modification or recall of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The application argued that the original Tribunal order was per incuriam and contrary to a Co-ordinate Bench decision. The Tribunal reviewed the application and the cited precedents, ultimately deciding to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which had found the decisions of the other High Courts cited by the assessee to be unsound in law. The Tribunal concluded that the earlier decision was correct and not subject to rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137466 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel, CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, PCIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singal, CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.351/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.1494/PUN/2015) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ashok Vijaykumar Kotecha, 4, Teacher’s Colony, Ring Road, Opp. JDDC Bank, Jalgaon- 425001. PAN : ABMPK4173D Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeking modification/recall of order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No.1494/PUN/2015 for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 27.04.2022 on the ground that (i) the order passed by this Tribunal is per in-curium, as it is contrary to the judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Assessee by : Adjournment application rejected Revenue by : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date of hearing : 21.04.2023 Date of pronouncement : 25.04.2023 MA No.351/PUN/2022 2 Tribunal in the case Mrs. Vandana Sanjay Kotecha (ITA No.437/PUN/2016) and (ii) when the Tribunal found that there was cleavage of judicial opinion amongst the Hon’ble High Courts, the Tribunal should have adopted the beneficial interpretation. 2. We had carefully gone through the averments made in the Miscellaneous Petition as well as the impugned order of this Tribunal (supra). It is settled position of law that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal does not hold the field, when the contrary judgement is rendered by the Hon’ble High Court. The ratio of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal losses its precedential value once the judgement is rendered by any High Court. In the impugned order, the Tribunal had referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.), decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singal, 403 ITR 97 (Delhi) and chosen to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 3. On mere reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singal, 403 ITR 97 (Delhi), MA No.351/PUN/2022 3 it would be clear that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court made a reference to the decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.) then held that they were not sound in law. Thus, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court itself found that the decisions of two Hon’ble High Courts cited supra are not sound in law. In the circumstances, the only course of action open to the Tribunal is to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singal, 403 ITR 97 (Delhi). The course of action adopted by this Tribunal is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd., 206 ITR 727 (Bom.). Thus, this Tribunal after discussing the factual matrix of the case and the case laws cited at bar had rendered the decision on merits, which is not amenable for rectification in exercise of jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, this Miscellaneous Application moved by the assessee is highly misconceived. MA No.351/PUN/2022 4 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 25 th day of April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 25 th April, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-12, Pune. 4. The CIT, Central, Nagpur. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.