MALAY SHAILESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

MA 33/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, Malay Shaileshbhia Patel, seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order which restored his case to the CIT(A) instead of the Assessing Officer. The assessee argued that the Tribunal's decision overlooked certain submissions and factual aspects, constituting a mistake apparent from the record. The Departmental Representative opposed this, asserting that the assessee had been given sufficient opportunities during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's request essentially sought a review of the decision on merits, which is not permissible under section 254(2).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314457 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P. SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: URVASHI SODHAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ अहमदाबाद \bयायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO.33/Ahd/2025 IN ITA No.2193/Ahd/2024 Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Malay Shaileshbhia Patel A/14, Snehadri Apartments Shreyas Tekera, Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015. Vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1) Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Ms.Urvashi Sodhan, AR Revenue by : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/05/2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/05/2025 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking rectification of the order passed by this Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 2193/Ahd/2024 dated 25.03.2025. It is the contention of the assessee that certain submissions and factual aspects were not appropriately appreciated in the impugned MA No.33/Ahd/2024 2 order and therefore, there exists a mistake apparent from record warranting recall and rectification. 2. During the course of hearing of the application, the learned Authorized Representative reiterated the contents of the Miscellaneous Application and submitted that the Bench has erred in restoring the matter to the file of the CIT(A) instead of remanding it to the file of the Assessing Officer, despite the fact that the additions were made without granting adequate opportunity of being heard and in disregard of the documents submitted before the AO. It was submitted that this failure constitutes a mistake apparent from record. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative opposed the application and submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities during the assessment proceedings but failed to respond within the time permitted. It was further submitted that the Tribunal, after appreciating all material on record, has passed a reasoned order restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The learned DR also submitted that since the CIT(A) possesses coterminous powers with the AO and can call for remand report under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the direction issued by the Tribunal is both legally sustainable and procedurally sound. Thus, no mistake apparent from record is made out warranting any rectification under section 254(2). 4. We have duly considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the Miscellaneous Application along with the MA No.33/Ahd/2024 3 Bench’s order dated 25.03.2025. The sole basis of the assessee's plea is that the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer instead of the CIT(A), which according to the assessee, constitutes a mistake apparent from record. In our considered view, this contention cannot be sustained under the limited scope of section 254(2), which empowers the Tribunal only to rectify errors that are self-evident, patent, and manifest from the record. A review or reconsideration of reasoning or conclusion reached in the appellate order cannot be undertaken in the garb of rectification. 5. The Bench in para 5 and 7 of the order has already recorded a categorical finding that the appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine without deciding the grounds on merits, and that there was no speaking order passed on any of the grounds of appeal. This decision was taken after appreciating the entirety of facts, rival contentions, and legal framework. It cannot be said that there is any mistake apparent from record in arriving at such a conclusion. 6. In the guise of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee essentially seeks a review of the decision rendered on merits. It is settled law that section 254(2) does not vest the Tribunal with power to review or re-appreciate evidence or arguments with a view to arrive at a different conclusion. 7. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present application. No mistake apparent from record, within the MA No.33/Ahd/2024 4 meaning of section 254(2) of the Act, has been pointed out or demonstrated. 8. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 9th May, 2025 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 09/05/2025 "