MOHAMMED ABDUL HAI,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

MA 130/HYD/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, Sri Mohammed Abdul Hai, seeking to rectify what he claimed were mistakes in the Tribunal's earlier order regarding his income tax assessment for the year 2007-2008. The assessee argued that there was a procedural error as the wrong representative was recorded in the Tribunal's order and that he was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. The Revenue opposed the application, arguing that the assessee was attempting to review the Tribunal's decision rather than rectify a mistake. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the issues raised did not constitute a mistake apparent on the record but were attempts to review the decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793132 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC), Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC), CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), ACIT vs. Sourashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAYAL GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.130/Hyd./2022 Arising out of ITA.No.506/Hyd./2018 - Assessment Year 2007-2008 Sri Mohammed Abdul Hai, Hyderabad. PAN AAHPH7905G vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), HYDERABAD. (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA, P Murali Mohan Rao For Revenue : MS Payal Gupta, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 12.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. : The above Miscellaneous application has been moved by the assessee requesting to rectify the mistakes crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 23.02.2021 in ITA.No.506/Hyd./2018 by exercising it’s jurisdiction u/sec. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA.No.130/Hyd./2022 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 360 days in filing the present Miscellaneous Application by the assessee before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons. It was the contention of the assessee that, the impugned delay was covered during the Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period. CA, P Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee drew the attention of the Bench that, the Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period was between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and as per Hon’ble Supreme Court’s directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08.03.2021 and 421 ITR 314, has excluded the Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period from for all intents and purposes under the limitation law. He further submitted that, even after post-covid pandemic period also, the public life has not come to normal position because of various health, social problems. He, therefore, pleaded that, in light of directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA.No.130/Hyd./2022 re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08.03.2021 and 421 ITR 314, the delay in filing of the present Miscellaneous Application may please be condoned as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has excluded the Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak between the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for all intents and purposes under the limitation law. Further, the delay in filing the present Miscellaneous Application is neither intentional nor for any undue advantage. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that in view of the above reasons, the delay of 360 days in filing the present Miscellaneous Application may please be condoned and the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee may please be admitted in the interest of justice since the circumstances which were beyond the control of the assessee. 3. MS. Payal Gupta, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay in filing the present Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal and she submitted that, the reasons explained Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA.No.130/Hyd./2022 by the assessee does not come under ‘sufficient cause’ and, therefore, the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee should be rejected. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition filed by the assessee seeking for condonation of delay of 360 days in filing the present Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the assessee in his affidavit are seems to be genuine and bonafide and the circumstances are also beyond the control of the assessee during the period of pre and post covid pandemic outbreak period. Further, in light of directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08.03.2021 and 421 ITR 314, we are inclined to condone the delay of 360 days in filing the present Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and admit the same for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA.No.130/Hyd./2022 5. CA, P. Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to the petition filed by the assessee submitted that, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal ITA.No.506/Hyd./2018 filed by the assessee vide order dated 23.02.2021 and considered that, the assessee was represented by Sri C. Suresh. However, the fact remains that, the Authorised Representative of the assessee is Sri Vineet Suresh, C.A. and not Sri C. Suresh. Further, on the date of hearing i.e., on 16.02.2021 Sri C. Suresh appeared on behalf of Sri Vineeth Suresh for taking adjournment. However, the case has been treated as heard and order was pronounced on 23.02.2021 without giving proper opportunity of being heard. Since the order has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, there is a mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal dated 23.02.2021 inasmuch as not given a proper opportunity. Thus, the order of the Tribunal dated 23.02.2021 needs to be recalled. 6. MS Payal Gupta, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that, the assessee has failed Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA.No.130/Hyd./2022 to make-out a case of mistake apparent on record from the order of the Tribunal dated 23.02.2021 and what is sought through the present Miscellaneous Application is to review the decision given by the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of the case which is not permissible. She further submitted that, with regard to Authorised Representative of the Assessee Mr. Vineeth Suresh and not Mr. C. Suresh is not Counsel for the Assessee is devoid of merit and going by the order of the Tribunal dated 23.02.2021, where the Tribunal has recorded the presence of Mr. C. Suresh and also arguments of the Counsel for the Assessee. Therefore, the present Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is only misleading and not brining out any fact with regard to mistake apparent on record in the Order dated 23.02.2021 of the Tribunal and thus, the same needs to be dismissed. 7. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant contents of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and we find that, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal ITA.No.506/Hyd./2018 filed by the assessee on Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA.No.130/Hyd./2022 23.02.2021 and remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment de novo after getting report from the DVO. Further, while disposing of the appeal, the Tribunal heard the appeal on 16.02.2021 and on that day Sri C. Suresh, Authorised Representative for the Assessee had appeared and argued the case. Further, Sri C. Suresh is partner of M/s. Sekhar and Suresh, Chartered Accountants, who is the Authorised Representative of the assessee before the Tribunal. Once the Authorised Representative appeared before the Tribunal and argued the case, in our considered view, the averment made by the assessee in the petition filed u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that, Sri C. Suresh is not Counsel and only appeared on behalf of Sri Vineeth Suresh is only misleading and cannot be accepted. Therefore, the petition filed by the assessee seeking for recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 23.02.2021 is nothing, but, to an attempt to review the order of the Tribunal under the garb of rectification, which is not permissible in law, in light of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs., Printed from counselvise.com 8 MA.No.130/Hyd./2022 Sourashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) and CIT vs., Reliance Telecom Ltd,., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC). Thus, we dismiss the M.A. filed by the assessee. 8. In the result, Miscellaneous Application No.130/Hyd./2022 of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 23rd September, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. Sri Mohammed Abdul Hai, Hyderabad. C/o. P. Murali & Co. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/1/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), I.T. Towers, Hyderabad. Telangana. 3. The CIT(A)-8, Hyderabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Hyderabad. 5. The DR ITAT “B” Bench, Hyderabad 6. Guard File //By Order// //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "