MANIK ASRI,DELHI V. ITO, WARD 49(1), CIVIC CENTRE, DELHI

MA 58/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the assessment year 2017-18, where the assessee, Manik Asri, faced an addition to his income by the Assessing Officer, which he contested. Initially, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) pronounced the appeal in favor of the assessee in open court, stating the appeal was allowed. However, the final written order contradicted this pronouncement, stating the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only, directing a de novo assessment. The assessee filed a miscellaneous application seeking to recall the order, arguing that the final order did not reflect the decision made in open court. The Tribunal acknowledged the discrepancy and recalled the order for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the importance of adhering to open court pronouncements unless new, unconsidered facts emerge.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396868 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Vinod Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University & Others
• Laws Referred To: Vinod Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University & Others 1988 AIR 371.1988 SCR (1) 941 Civil Appeal No. 2976 of1987
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGINI HANDA
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI SATBEERR SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.58/Del/2025 (arising in ITA No.3262/DEL/2024) (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Manik Asri, vs. ITO, Ward 49 (1), M-40, IInd Floor, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (PAN: AFKPA9438B) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT/ASSESSEE BY : Ms. Ragini Handa, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.05.2025 Date of Order : 28.05.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This misc. application is filed by the applicant/assessee against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.3262/Del/2024 dated 28.01.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the misc. application is filed for recalling the aforesaid order dated 28.01.2025 and the reasons for the same are given in detail in the misc. application. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced below :- 2 MA No.58/Del/2025 “2. The case involves a deposit of cash amounting to Rs.55,00,000 in the bank account by the Assessee. The source of this deposit was supported by invoices of all cash sales, VAT returns, cash book, entries in the stock register quantity-wise, monthly and annually, bank statements, showing 93% of sales are through banking channel and only 7% are in cash, evidence showing 80% is export sales and remaining is domestic, ledgers, details of purchase and sale parties, details of cash in hand, cash deposit and cash sales, month wise sale detail, returns, tax audit report, audited financials demonstrating that the stock existed. Even evidence of the prior AY was submitted. During the course of the hearing, Ms. Ragini Handa, the AR of the Assessee (\"AR\") referred to page 3 and 4 of the written submissions furnished before your Honors, which contained comprehensive factual evidence explaining the cash deposit The Hon'ble Judicial Member, after hearing the facts of the case, pronounced in open court that the appeal was allowed. 3. Since the appeal was declared as allowed in open court. The AR was asked not to proceed further and was under the bona fide belief that the matter had been decided in favour of the Assessee. 4. Subsequently, the order sheet containing the pronouncement by the Hon'ble Judicial Member was on the official website of the ITAT on 28.01.2025, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1. The relevant extract from the order sheet is as follows: “The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in open court\" 5. From the above, it is evident that the pronouncement made in open court, after hearing the matter, is completely aligned with the entries in the order sheet, which clearly state that the appeal was allowed, Needless to say, the ground of appeal was for the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the remark/conclusion drawn by the Hon'ble Judicial Member stating that \"the appeal is allowed\" meant that the addition so made was deleted. 6. However, upon receipt of the final order on 24.02.2025, the Assessee was surprised to find that the appellate order had instead been set aside and remanded to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh proceedings. Refer para 17 of the order attached as Annexure 2. At the bottom of the order, it is stated that the \"Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of January, 2025 after the conclusion of hearing\". 7. This is contrary to the pronouncement made in open court, which clearly stated that the appeal had been decided in favour of the Assessee. 8. Your Honor will appreciate that soon after the pronouncement, The AR was precluded from making any further submissions as the Hon'ble Bench was convinced of the merits of the case, both factually and legally. 3 MA No.58/Del/2025 9. The final order, which diverges entirely from the order pronounced in open court, has come as a great surprise. The facts stated above are being submitted under oath in the form of an affidavit attached as Annexure-3. 10. Your Honor, as an advocate and officer of the court, the sworn affidavit of AR may kindly be considered as testimony to the truthfulness of the facts, which needless to say can be verified from recordings of the proceedings on that day. 11. Your Honor, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is known for dispensing justice expeditiously and the Assessee therefore humbly requests that the order dated 28.01.2025 be recalled and that the appeal be allowed in favor of the Assessee, as was pronounced in open court and subsequently recorded in the order sheet uploaded by the Hon'ble Tribunal. 12. A judgement once pronounced in open Court becomes operative even without the signatures of the judges and any alteration therein is not permissible. Vinod Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University & Others 1988 AIR 371.1988 SCR (1) 941 Civil Appeal No. 2976 of1987 “The provisions of Order 20, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure give power to the Court to make alterations/additions in a judgment so long as the judgment has not been signed, but that power should be exercised judicially, sparingly and for adequate reasons. When a judgment is pronounced in the open court. the parties act upon it and conduct their affairs on the basis that it is in judgment of the court and that the signing of the judgment is a formality to follow. A Judgment to be operative does not await the signing thereof by the court. If what is pronounced in the court is not acted upon, the litigants would be prejudiced; their confidence in the judicial process would be shaken. A judgment pronounced in the open court should be acted upon unless there be some exceptional feature, like soon after the judgment is declared in the open court; a feature, not placed for consideration before the court earlier, is brought to its notice by either party to the cause, or the court discovers some new facts from the record or the court notices a feature, which should be taken into account, or a review is asked for, which is granted. In such a situation the court may take up the matter again for further consideration, and it has to give good reasons if the judgment delivered by it is not to be operative. Since the writ petition of the appellant had first been allowed by pronouncement of the judgment in the open court and there is nothing on record to justify why it was not acted upon.” 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, ld. AR prayed that the order may be recalled and decide the same as was pronounced in the open court. 4 MA No.58/Del/2025 4. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that there is no mistake apparent on record and objected to the submissions of the assessee. 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the Bench has pronounced the decision in the Open Court after complete hearing and also relevant papers submitted at the time of hearing and pronounced that the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee. However, at the time of dictation of the order, we have considered the material already available on record and pronounced the order as ‘allowed for statistical purposes’ with a clear direction to the AO to redo the assessment denovo based on the material already available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Singh vs. Bararas Hindu University (supra) held, “a judgment to be operative does not await the signing thereof by the court. If what is pronounced in the court is not acted upon, the litigants would be prejudiced; their confidence in the judicial process would be shaken.” We observed that in this case, we pronounced in the open court as “allowed” in favour of the assessee, however in the final order, it is pronounced as “allowed for statistical purposes”. This is no doubt mistaken apparent on record. Referring back to Hon’ble Supreme Court decision (supra), they have also mentioned exceptional cases in which the decisions can be modified provided a feature, not placed for consideration before the court earlier, is brought to its notice by either party to the cause, or the court 5 MA No.58/Del/2025 discovers some new facts from the record or the court notices a feature, which should be taken into account, or a review is asked for, which is granted. From the above, it is clear that unless some new features are found subsequent to the pronouncement in the open court, in such a situation, the order already pronounced can be modified. In the given case, the Bench has only analysed the documents already placed on record and no new material or no new feature was found or discussed in the order to change the decision already pronounced in the Open Court. Therefore, in our considered view, there is a mistake apparent on record and the order should be recalled and reheard afresh considering the material available on record. Accordingly, we recall the order to adjudicate the same afresh and direct the Registry to list the matter in due course. 6. In the result, the misc. application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of May, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28th.05.2025 TS 6 MA No.58/Del/2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "