NARAYAN PANDIT BOROLE,JALGAON V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (4), JALGAON

MA 327/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Narayan Pandit Borole, the assessee, who filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the Tribunal's earlier order which did not address certain legal grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment order for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The reassessment was based on the Income Tax Officer's belief that income had escaped assessment, leading to a notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act 1961. The Tribunal acknowledged that the legal grounds concerning the validity of the reassessment order were inadvertently left unadjudicated in the previous ruling. The Tribunal's decision to recall the order was influenced by the Department's concession that these grounds remained unaddressed, and the need to correct the record under section 254(2) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474155 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Charushila Suresh Borole vs. ITO, Finquick Finance P. Ltd vs. DCIT, Rakesh Ramani vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: PIYUSH BAFNA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 254(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.327/PUN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.634/PUN/2019 \u0001नधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Narayan Pandit Borole, Plot No.37, Pankaj Nagar, Yawal Road, Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon – 425 107 Maharashtra PAN : AHOPB7368R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jalgaon Applicant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM : This Miscellaneous application has been moved by the assessee seeking recall of the Tribunal order dated 05.12.2022 passed in ITA No.634/PUN/2019 in relation to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal while disposing of the captioned appeal had not adjudicated the legal grounds raised vide Ground Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the validity of reassessment order. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant grounds which remained to be adjudicated and the contents of the Miscellaneous Application which read as under : Assessee by : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 31.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 03.04.2025 M.A. No.327/PUN/2023 Narayan Pandit Borole 2 Grounds of appeal remained to be adjudicated : “1) In the absence of conditions precedent for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act 1961, the impugned reassessment proceedings are bad in law, null and void-ab-initio and without jurisdiction and hence the impugned reassessment order be vacated/quashed / annulled. 2) In the absence of proper sanction to the issue of notice u/s 148 by the JT. CIT, the reassessmennt proceedings are bad in law.” Relevant contents of M.A. : “3. Reassessment proceedings: 3.1. Thereafter, the Ld. AO believed that income had escaped assessment for AY 2011-12 and, through notice u/s 148 dated 10- 03-2016, reopened the appellant's case. The reasons recorded indicated that, in the original assessment, the Ld. AO had mistakenly allowed the claim of Rs 63,28,602/- paid to PIPL as direct expenses without proper verification, leading to an alleged escapement of income. 3.2. Despite the above background and flaws in the actions initiated by the Ld. AO, the Ld. JCIT/AddI. CIT granted mechanical approval u/s 151 with a mere 'Yes, I am satisfied' on 28-03-2016, showing a lack of proper application of mind. 3.3. The reassessment proceedings were completed with an order u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) on 06-12-2016, adding Rs 63,28,602 to the originally assessed income of Rs 64,696, resulting in a reassessed income of Rs 63,93,300. 4. CIT-A Proceedings: 4.1. Against the order u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act the Appellant filed an appeal before CIT(A), challenging the legality of the reassessment proceedings and the addition on merits. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on 05-03-2019, upholding the reassessment and the addition of Rs 63,28,602 made by the AO. 5. ITAT Proceedings: 5.1. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal on 25-04-2019, challenging both the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the additions on merit. It is important to note that legal grounds were raised in Form 36, and a detailed paper book along with written synopsis was submitted on 06-05-2022. 5.2. The oral hearing before Hon'ble \"A\" Bench on 22-11-2022 involved detailed arguments by the Ld. AR, challenging both the reassessment proceedings supported by various case laws and the additions on merit. Ld. AR also drawn attention of Hon'ble Bench to M.A. No.327/PUN/2023 Narayan Pandit Borole 3 exactly similar case of Appellant's niece, Charushila Suresh Borole vs. ITO (ΙΤΑ 633/PUN/2019), where Hon'ble Pune 6. Mistakes Apparent from Record - 6.1. The Hon'ble Pune Tribunal vide its order dated 05-12-2022 decided the said appeal on merits only and sustained the additions made by the Ld. AO. But surprisingly, the Hon'ble Bench did not adjudicate Ground Nos. 1 and 2, which challenged the validity of the reassessment order apart from certain other mistakes. 6.2. The then Authorized Representative CA Vinay Kawdia extensively argued in open court on 22-11-2022, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings as per the legal grounds of appeal raised in the appeal memo. Further, a detailed written submission, along with the paperbook, was filed on 06-05-2022, specifically addressing Grounds No. 1 and 2, challenging the reassessment's validity, which is part of the record. This has been affirmed by CA Vinay Kawdia through a sworn affidavit filed on 24-11-2023, a copy of which is attached at page 16 to 19 of main MA Petition. 6.3. It is crucial to note that the order passed by Hon'ble \"A\" Bench does not mention that Grounds No. 1 and 2 were not pressed by the Appellant, clearly indicating that the Appellant argued these legal grounds. However, it appears that these legal grounds inadvertently remained to be adjudicated in the order dated 05-12- 2022. This omission constitutes a mistake apparent from the record under section 254(2) of the Act.. 6.4. Further, the decision of the co-ordinate Pune Bench in the case of the Appellant's niece in ITA 633/PUN/2019, involving similar facts, was cited before the Hon'ble Bench during the hearing. The copy of the said judgment was duly submitted in the paper book filed on 06-05-2022 (pages 61 to 64). However, this decision too remained to be referred and decided upon, despite involving similar facts in the case of the Appellant. This also constitute a mistake apparent from record u/s 254(2). For this, Appellant relies on - A. Finquick Finance P. Ltd vs. DCIT (TM)-87 ITD 323-Delhi Tribunal B. Rakesh Ramani vs. ITO-5 SOT 547 [2005] - Mumbai Tribunal” 3. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the Tribunal order dated 05.12.2022. Ld. Departmental fairly conceded that the above-mentioned legal grounds raised by the assessee remained unadjudicated by the Tribunal. We therefore considering the apparent mistake M.A. No.327/PUN/2023 Narayan Pandit Borole 4 from record recall the Tribunal order dated 05.12.2022 for the limited purpose of adjudicating the legal grounds raised vide Grounds of appeal No.1 and 2. Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing in due course. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 03rd day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE ) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 03rd April, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "