MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI V. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

MA 21/AGR/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Mahim Patran Private Limited, which filed miscellaneous applications against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, concerning the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The applications were based on the claim that the Tribunal had not considered certain oral arguments and written submissions related to the computation of tax deducted at source, which were allegedly examined by the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal, however, found that all submissions, both oral and written, had been adequately considered in their decision-making process. The Tribunal dismissed the applications, stating that there was no mistake apparent on record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772343 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Laxmi electronic Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT, ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, Udhavdas Kewalram vs. CIT, CIT vs. ITAT and Others, Ramibhai K. Shiyani vs. DCIT, Mula Pravara Electric Co-op. Society Ltd. vs. DCIT, Golden Meadows Properties vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 20 & 21/Agr/2020 (in ITA No.195 & 196/Agr/2015) Assessment year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Mahim Patran Private Limited, Kripa/Ritambhara Building, Tribhuvan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, West, New Delhi. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Agra. PAN : AABCM0886E (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both these miscellaneous applications emanate from the common order dated 02.09.2019 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 with respect to assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Both the applications, based on similar facts, are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The applicant assessee has moved these applications u/s. 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) with a prayer to recall the impugned order dated 02.09.2019 on the ground that during Assessee by None Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing 18.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 20 & 21/Agr/2020 2 | P a g e the hearing of the appeals, assessee’s counsel argued that the issue of computation of tax deducted at source claimed by the assessee company was examined by the CIT(Appeals) and therefore, in view of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act, the Pr. CIT had no jurisdiction to revise such order which has been decided by the CIT(Appeals). After considering the arguments of ld. DR, the Bench expressed its view and agreed with the arguments of the assessee’s counsel and directed the assessee’s counsel not to argue further on merits of the case. However, vide para-9 of the impugned order, it is mentioned by the Tribunal that no oral arguments were addressed by the ld. AR which is incorrect. The assessee has further stated that even though the counsel relied on the submissions made in writing, but were not considered in right perspective by the Tribunal regarding the claim of tax deducted at source, for which the assessee had duly filed declaration as required under rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Non-consideration of assessee’s arguments by the Tribunal is a mistake apparent on record, which should be rectified. 3. The applicant assessee further enclosed the following case laws : (i) Laxmi electronic Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 398 (Allahabad) (ii) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, 262 ITR 146 (Guj); (iii) Udhavdas Kewalram vs. CIT, 66 ITR 462 (SC) Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 20 & 21/Agr/2020 3 | P a g e (iv) CIT vs. ITAT and Others, 58 ITR 634 (Alld). (v) Ramibhai K. Shiyani vs. DCIT [2014) 221 Taxman 130 (Gujrat) (vi) Mula Pravara Electric Co-op. Society Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 156 TTJ 517 (Pune-Trib.). (vii) Golden Meadows Properties vs. ITO (2005) 149 Taxman 17 (Mumbai-ITAT). 4. None responded on behalf of the applicant. Assessee’s adjournment application available on record was rejected, keeping in mind the old pendency of the year 2020, hence, heard Ld. Sr. departmental representative, the only opposite party in attendance. 5. Learned DR has submitted that all the arguments of the assessee have been considered by the Tribunal, which were part of assessee’s written submissions. There is no mistake apparent on record, as the impugned order has been passed on merits. Hence, opposed assessee’s prayer. 6. We have perused the detailed common impugned order dated 02.09.2019, comprising 30 pages. First of all, we notice that though there is mention in para 9 of the impugned order that no oral arguments were addressed by the Ld. AR, however, detailed written submissions of the assessee have been mentioned at para 9 starting from page 8 to 16. The case laws cited by the assessee and even assessee’s arguments, as stated in the present miscellaneous application, also find place in the impugned order, which seems to be on the basis of assessee’s written Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 20 & 21/Agr/2020 4 | P a g e submissions. Moreover, the assessee has not been able to state as to which oral submission of the assessee was not part of written submission, which was left out of the sight of the Tribunal from being considered and even if there is any, what prejudice could cause to the assessee. It is relevant to note that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagubhai Bhanabhai Khalsi and Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat, 2007 (58) ACC 834 SC, has held that Judge’s records are conclusive. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order with specific finding. There does not appear any degree of mistake apparent on record. Both the miscellaneous applications have no force and liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, both the miscellaneous applications are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.08.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "