THE JAWALE VIDYA VIKAS MANDAL , SOLAPUR V. COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , PUNE, PUNE

MA 43/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0944 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR ARVIND BHARDWAJ
• Section: 80G; 254(2)

Judgement Text

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “ए” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल स ं . / MA No. 43/PUN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 316/PUN/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 The Jawale Vidya Vikas Mandal, A/p : Jawale, Sangola, Solapur – 413 309 PAN: AABTT5380K . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Pune . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by: Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue by : Shri Kumar Arvind Bhardwaj स ु नवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 06/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2023 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 [for short ‘the Act’] dismissing the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No. 316/PUN/2020 dt . 30/11/2022 [for short ‘impugned order’]. 2. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short ‘ITAT-Rules’] perused material placed on records and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position and forewarned to parties present. The Jawale Vidya Vikas Mandal, MA No.43/PUN/2023 (Arising Out of 316/PUN/2020) ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 3 3. From the order-sheet entries we note that, while disposing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte u/r 24 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the appellant was duly granted as many as four effective adjournments on the written request of Ld. AR. The failure of appellant to represent its grievance on the scheduled date of hearing coupled with absence of application for adjournment, the Tribunal disposed-off the appeal ex-parte (supra). While doing so the Tribunal has recorded its finding that, the appellant after filing Form No 10G seeking grant of 80G approval was failed to attend the shortcomings intimated and also failed adduce necessary evidential documents in support of discrepancies communicate by the registering authority. In view of the Tribunal said rejection to grant 80G approval since caused out of lack of reasonable opportunity, therefore in all the fairness, the matter was remanded to Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to accord one more effective opportunity to comply with the requirement, thus without any prejudice to the appellant. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to MA application filed u/r 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 running into two pages seeking to recall the matter and to re- adjudicate on almost all grounds without indicative therein existence of any apparent & obvious mistake. During the hearing the Ld. AR has failed too to pinpoint any ‘apparent mistake’ so has to support the admission of present MA. 5. Albeit the reason for non-prosecution of appeal cited by the appellant at the most may be a good reason, but certainly not sufficient reason to trigger recalling of the matter. And we hold so for two reasons viz; no prejudice is caused to the appellant by ex-parte disposal of appeal and no apparent mistake in the impugned order was brought to our notice so has to occasion or qualify for rectification. The Jawale Vidya Vikas Mandal, MA No.43/PUN/2023 (Arising Out of 316/PUN/2020) ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 3 6. The scope and ambit of section 254(2) of the Act is very limited to rectification of mistakes apparent from record but otherwise to review or recall of any earlier order of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act is impermissible. In our view the Tribunal cannot go into the merit of the appeal all over again as it is not within the scope of an application for rectification to re-argue the case and avail of a further chance where there is no mistake apparent on the fact of record. 7. In the set of facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the present MA and in the argument of the Ld. AR. In the absence of any obvious mistake in the impugned order brought to our notice, this miscellaneous application of the assessee stands legless in the light of ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the landmark case of ‘TS Balram ITO Vs M/s Volkart Brothers’ reported in 82 ITR 50 (SC). 8. In result, MA of the appellant assessee is DISMISSED. U/r rule 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced in open court on this Friday 06 th day of October, 2023. -S/d- -S/d- SATBEER SINGH GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER प ु णे / PUNE ; ददना ां क / Dated : 06 th day of October, 2023. आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT, Pune (MH-India) 4. The Pr.CIT (E) Pune (MH-India) 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘A’, Pune 6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. Ashwini आदेशान ु सार / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादधकरण, प ु णे / ITAT, Pune.