Roop Raj Hospitality (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO ward 21(4), New Delhi

MA 45/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1547 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHARN
• Assessee Lawyers: WAY OF FILING THIS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment
• Section: 147; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT M.A. No.45/Del/2023 [Arising out of ITA No.8000/Del/2019] Assessment Year: 2011-12 Roop Raj Hospitality (P) Ltd., SB Garg & Co. CAs 20/17, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward -21(4), New Delhi PAN :AAECR1653H (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER The present application has been filed by the assessee seeking recall and modification of order dated 30.06.2022 passed in ITA No. 8000/Del/2019. 2. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. It is the case of the assessee that the Tribunal has failed to decide all the grounds raised by the assessee. It has further been submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the validity of re-assessment proceedings has to be determined based on reasons recorded. Whereas, learned Departmental Assessee by Sh. Sachin Kumar, CA Respondent by Sh. Vivek Vardharn, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.06.2024 Date of pronouncement 20.06.2024 M.A. No.45/Del/2023 2 | P a g e Representative has submitted that the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order and there is no scope for recall/rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. 3. Having considered rival submissions, I find, the grounds raised by the assessee are primarily on the issue of validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act and the grounds are interrelated and overlapping. At the time of hearing of the appeal, full opportunity was granted to both the parties to make their submissions. After considering the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the assessee has accepted the decision of the first appellate authority on merits and has only challenged the validity of reopening of assessment. The Tribunal has passed a well reasoned and speaking order, considering all the submissions of the assessee. In fact, the judicial precedents cited by the assessee was also taken note of and distinguished. Therefore, the facts and materials on record clearly reveal that assessee’s appeal was disposed of through a reasoned order upon due application of mind. 4. A reading of section 254(2) of the Act makes it clear that the Tribunal has power to rectify on mistake which is apparent on the face of record. Whereas, what the assessee by way of filing this M.A. No.45/Del/2023 3 | P a g e application wants the Tribunal to do is, to review its earlier decision. Merely because the decision rendered by the Tribunal is not to the liking of the assessee, it cannot be said that there is mistake apparent on the face of record requiring recall/rectification. Once the Tribunal has taken a conscious decision on the issue, such decision cannot be reviewed under section 254(2) of the Act, as the scope and ambit of section 254(2) does not permit the Tribunal to do so. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the present application filed by the assessee, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20 th June, 2024 Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) VICE-PRESIDENT Dated: 20 th June, 2024. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi