M/s. Adler mediequip Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1(1), Pune

MA 375/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Adler Mediequip Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking the recall of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune. The original order mistakenly recorded that the appellant had acquired shares from Mr. Ajay Pitre, whereas it was actually Smith & Nephew Pte Ltd. that acquired the shares. This incorrect assumption of fact led to an erroneous conclusion in the original order. Additionally, the appellant contended that the Tribunal had failed to address specific grounds of appeal (nos. 4 and 5) in the original judgment. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that the mistakes pointed out did not constitute a 'mistake apparent from the record' warranting a recall. However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention about the factual error and the need to revisit the unaddressed grounds, thus allowing the application for recall.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137578 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.375/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.156/PUN/2022) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Adler Mediequip Pvt. Ltd., Podium Floor, Tower-4, World Trade Centre, S.No.1, Pune- 411014. PAN : AADCA0618C Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This present Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No.156/PUN/2022 for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 21.06.2022 on the ground that : (i) The Tribunal assumed wrong fact that the appellant i.e. assessee company had acquired shares from Mr. Ajay Pitre, whereas, contrary to the fact that Smith & Nephew Pte Ltd. had acquired shares from Mr. Ajay Pitre and Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Shri Jasmin Amalsadvala Revenue by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of hearing : 21.07.2023 Date of pronouncement : 31.07.2023 MA No.375/PUN/2022 2 others, the wrong assumptions of fact, led to wrong conclusion by this Tribunal. (ii) The Tribunal had failed to adjudicate the ground of appeal nos.4 and 5. 2. The ld. AR taking us through the background of the case submits that the Tribunal had recorded a wrong fact that the appellant had purchased the shares from Mr. Ajay Pitre, whereas, it is Smith & Nephew Pte Ltd. which acquired the shares from Mr. Ajay Pitre and on account of this assumption of wrong fact by this Tribunal it reached the erroneous conclusion. He further submits that this wrong assumption of fact had changed the entire complexion of the case warranting the recall of the impugned order. He further submits that this Tribunal had failed to adjudicate the ground of appeal nos.4 and 5 raised before this Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that the mistakes pointed out by the assessee are not a mistake apparent from the record and every erroneous order does not give to raise to be mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, he submits that no interference is called for by this Tribunal. 4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We had carefully gone through the order passed by this Tribunal and find that the Tribunal recorded a wrong fact that the MA No.375/PUN/2022 3 appellant had acquired shares of Adler from Mr. Ajay Pitre, whereas, in fact, it is Smith & Nephew Pte Ltd. which acquired the shares of Adler from Mr. Ajay Pitre. We are in complete agreement with the ld. AR that the wrong assumptions of fact had changed the entire complexion of case warranting a recall of the whole order. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to recall the entire order and all the contentions raised in the appeal are left open for de novo consideration by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to post the matter in regular course of hearing. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on this 31 st day of July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 31 st July, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The DRP-3, Mumbai-2. 4. The TPO-1(1), Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “C” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “C” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.