MENA RICE MILLS,MEHSANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MEHSANA

MA 79/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mena Rice Mills, which filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The original dispute concerned an addition of Rs.1,13,00,500 made by the Assessing Officer, which was treated as unexplained money due to unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition, but the Tribunal set aside this decision due to procedural violations under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, directing a re-examination of the case after allowing the Assessing Officer to examine the fresh evidences. The assessee's application argued that there was a mistake in the Tribunal's order, claiming that the issue of Rule 46A was not raised by the Revenue, and thus, the setting aside of the matter was incorrect.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791573 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESHWAR P. MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIN SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.79/Ahd/2025 (In ITA No.1029/Ahd/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mena Rice Mills, Plot No.121, GIDC Estate, Highway, Kalol, Mehsana – 382 725. (Gujarat). [PAN – AACFM 9435 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Mehsana, (Gujarat). (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue by Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 08.12.2025 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee with a request to rectify the mistake apparent from record in the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1029/Ahd/2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Shri Parin Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee, explained that the issue involved in the appeal filed by the Revenue was addition of Rs.1,13,00,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account which was treated as unexplained money. The Ld. AR submitted that the Revenue has taken a Printed from counselvise.com N.A. No.79/Ahd/2025 (In ITA No.1029/Ahd/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mena Rice Mills vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 ground against the deletion of addition by the Ld. CIT(A) on merits. However, the Tribunal in its order had set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that there was violation of provision of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. The Ld. AR submitted that no specific ground on the issue of contravention of Rule 46A was raised by the Revenue and, therefore, the Tribunal was not correct in setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). This, according to him, was a mistake apparent from record which required rectification. It was further submitted in the course of hearing that the Hon’ble Sr. Member had orally pronounced the order dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and for this reason also there was a mistake apparent from record. 3. Per contra, Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Tribunal has power to pass the order on the appeal, as it thinks fit. The fact that there was contravention of provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Rules was evident from the order of Ld. CIT(A). This aspect was argued by the Ld. Sr. DR in the course of hearing and duly responded by the Ld. Sr. DR. Considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing relief to the assessee had controverted the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Rules, the Tribunal had rightly set aside the matter to him with a direction to re- adjudicate the matter after allowing opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the fresh evidences brought on record before him. He submitted that there was no mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal as direction as given by the Tribunal was intrinsic to the grounds raised by the Revenue. He further submitted that the order was pronounced only on 02.04.2025 whereby appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purpose. Printed from counselvise.com N.A. No.79/Ahd/2025 (In ITA No.1029/Ahd/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mena Rice Mills vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 4. We have considered the rival submissions. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with the appeal is expressed in Section 254(1) of the Act in the widest possible terms. The Tribunal, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, can pass such orders thereon “as it thinks fit”. The grounds raised by the Revenue was in respect of deletion of addition of Rs.1,13,00,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The basis for allowing the relief by the ld. CIT(A) was duly examined in the course of hearing. It was found that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the relief in contravention to provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, as no opportunity was allowed to the Assessing Officer to examine fresh evidences brought on record by the assessee in the course of appellate proceeding. This fact was evident from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) itself. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to forward the additional evidences filed in the course of appeal proceeding to the AO, in order to enable him to examine those fresh evidences and also to produce any evidence in rebuttal of the additional evidences filed by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the matter, after obtaining remand report of the AO. The direction as given was intrinsic to the ground as raised by the Revenue and the issue involved in the appeal. It is not the case that the direction pertained to an issue or a question which was not in dispute before us or was not the subject matter of appeal at all. The provision of section 254 of the Act does not preclude the Tribunal from deciding the matter on the basis of facts which are evident from the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The order was passed in the manner as deemed fit by us and we do not find any mistake in the order dated 02.04.2025. The contention of the Ld. AR that the Hon’ble Sr. Member had dismissed the Printed from counselvise.com N.A. No.79/Ahd/2025 (In ITA No.1029/Ahd/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mena Rice Mills vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 appeal of the Revenue in the course of hearing is not found correct. No order was pronounced on the date of hearing on 25.03.2025 and it is evident from the order sheet that the order was only reserved on that day. The order was pronounced only on 02.04.2025 when it was signed by both the Members. A casual observation in the course of hearing about the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the appellate authority on merits, cannot be taken as pronouncement of order. In fact, the entire argument of the Ld. Sr. DR as well as the response of the assessee’s Counsel was on the issue of violation of provisions of Section 46A(3) of the IT Rules, in respect of which no observation was made by the Members in the course of hearing. In view of the above facts, we do not find any mistake in the order dated 02.04.2025 which calls for any rectification on our part. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 8th December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Ahmedabad, the 8th December, 2025 PBN/* Printed from counselvise.com N.A. No.79/Ahd/2025 (In ITA No.1029/Ahd/2024) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mena Rice Mills vs. ITO Page 5 of 5 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) The PCIT (4) The CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPYE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "