MR APRESH TUKARAM KHOT,RAIGAD V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL, CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL

MA 63/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Apresh Tukaram Khot, the appellant, who sought to recall an order of the ITAT dated 16.04.2024 concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's earlier order contained mistakes apparent from the record, specifically regarding the Tribunal's statements that both parties were heard and that the counsel argued vehemently, which the appellant contested as incorrect. The appellant's representatives had faced procedural challenges during the initial hearing, including a rejected request for adjournment, which hindered their ability to present a comprehensive case. The Departmental Representative did not object to the recall of the order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472590 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH KHANDELWAL

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एक सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER विविध आिेदन सं. / MA No.63/PUN/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.209/PUN/2024) वनधधारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mr. Apresh Tukaram Khot, Thal Bazaar, Thal, Tal-Alibag, Dist.-Raigad, Maharashtra. PAN: ATJPK8281D Vs. The ACIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel. अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Khandelwal (through Virtual) Department by : Shri Arvind Desai – Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 21-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11-03-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : By this Miscellaneous Application the assessee seeks to recall the order of the Tribunal dated 16.04.2024 in ITA No.209/PUN/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 alleging that a mistake apparent from the record has crept into the aforesaid order that calls for rectification under the provisions of section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the observation made by the Tribunal that “Heard both the parties…” and “Learned Counsel vehemently argued during the course of the hearing….” is not correct. 2. The Ld. AR submitted that on the first date of hearing in the aforesaid appeal held on 12.03.2024, a short adjournment was sought by Mr. Akash Kumar (through virtual appearance) stating that the Ld. AR, Mr. Rajiv Khandelwal who had to appear in the matter was out of town and that the assessee is in the process of compiling the paper book which is 2 MA No.63/PUN/2024, AY 2013-14 required to be submitted to the Tribunal in support of the grounds of appeal. However, the said request for adjournment was rejected by the Bench without assigning any reasons and the order in ITA No.209/PUN/2024 was passed partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. AR placed on record before us an affidavit of Mr. Akash Kumar in support of his above made claim. He further submitted that they were appointed as authorized representatives of the assessee only on 12.04.2024 and the same being the first date of hearing; they needed some time to prepare the case. He therefore submitted that the assessee deserves one more opportunity of hearing and requested that the order of the Tribunal dated 16.04.2024 may be recalled for fresh hearing. 3. The Ld. DR had no objection to the above request of the Ld. AR. 4. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee has made the following submissions in the Miscellaneous Application: “1. The above appeal for income-tax assessment year 2013-14 came up for hearing before the Honourable Tribunal, 'SMC' Bench, Pune on 12th April, 2024, which has been disposed of by its order dated 16.04.2024, served on the Applicant on 12th July, 2024. The abovenamed Applicant begs to present this application to bring before the Honourable Bench certain matters and relevant facts which, it is submitted, would show that there are certain mistakes apparent on record in the aforesaid order of the Honourable Tribunal and may require a recall of the impugned order. 2. The Honourable Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the Applicant and deleted the addition of Rs 6.30 lacs out of Rs 21.30 lacs, thereby sustaining the addition of Rs 15 lacs in respect of cash deposited by the Applicant. 3. The apparent mistake on record that has crept in in the order of the Honourable Tribunal is - 3.1 In the opening paragraph, the Honourable Tribunal states \"Heard both the parties... Further, in para 4 of the order, the Honourable Tribunal has observed that \"Learned counsel vehemently argued during the course of the hearing...\" 3.2 The Applicant submits that the appeal was fixed for the hearing for the first time on 12th April, 2024. On the date of hearing, that is 12th April, 2024, the Applicant appointed Mr Rajiv Khandelwal and others as Authorised Representatives, a fact that can be verified from the Power of Attorney executed in the aforesaid appeal (enclosed, in original). 3.3 On the date of hearing a short adjournment was sought by Mr Akash Kumar, as Mr Rajiv Khandelwal who was to appear in the matter was out of town, by stating that the Applicant was in the process of compiling the paper book that was required to be submitted 3 MA No.63/PUN/2024, AY 2013-14 to the Tribunal in support of the grounds of appeal; however, the said request for adjournment was rejected without assigning any reason. 3.4 Further, it is submitted that the case being factual in nature, filing of the paper book would have been vital for disposal of the aforesaid appeal and without the paper book, the Authorised Representative could not have argued the appeal, though mentioned by the Honourable Tribunal as 'vehemently argued'. It would not be out of place to mention that the Authorised Representative had been appointed only on the date of the hearing and hence, was not even aware of the facts of the case. 4. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the Applicant prays that – (a) the Order of the Tribunal dated 16.04.2024 be recalled to grant an opportunity to the Applicant to present his case and / or (b) the Tribunal may grant such further and / or other reliefs as it deems fit.” 5. Based on the above submissions, in our considered view, there was no proper and adequate opportunity of hearing granted to the assessee to present and substantiate its case on merits. Considering the totality of facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and in the absence of any objection from the side of the Ld. DR, we deem it fit to recall the order of the Tribunal by giving an opportunity of fresh hearing to the assessee to present and substantiate its case. Accordingly, the order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.209/PUN/2024 is hereby recalled and the registry is directed to fix the aforesaid appeal for hearing on 26.03.2025 before the regular Bench. As the date of hearing is already pronounced in the Open Court in the presence of Ld. Representatives of both the parties, no separate notice of hearing shall be issued. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Borad) (Astha Chandra) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददन ांक / Dated : 11th March, 2025. रदि 4 MA No.63/PUN/2024, AY 2013-14 आदेश की प्रविवलवप अग्रेवर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धिभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एक सदस्य मामला” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपत प्रदत// True Copy// आदेश नुस र / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ दनजी सदिि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune "