NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,ANAND V. THE ACIT.,ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

MA 125/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) filing a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, concerning disallowances under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The NDDB contended that the ITAT had overlooked binding precedents from earlier years (2008-09 and 2009-10) where similar disallowances were deleted or reduced. The ITAT had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the computation of administrative expenses claimed by the NDDB. The NDDB sought either a directive for the Assessing Officer to follow the earlier decisions or a recall of the ITAT's order for fresh adjudication. The ITAT dismissed the application, stating that it did not point out any mistake apparent from the record and that the Tribunal's decision was a reasoned order not open to review under section 254(2).

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827131 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: APARNA PARELKAR
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.125/Ahd/2024 (in I.T.A. No.2004/Ahd/2014) (Assessment Year: 2010-11) National Dairy Development Board, P.O. Box No. 40, Anand, Gujarat-388001 Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand [PAN No.AABCN2029C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Aparna Parelkar, AR Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 28.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 05.01.2026 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, National Dairy Development Board, has filed the present Miscellaneous Application No. 125 arising out of the order passed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No. 2004/Ahd/2014 dated 17.05.2024 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Miscellaneous Application has been filed with the limited grievance that while adjudicating Ground No. 4 relating to disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has committed a mistake apparent from the record. 2. In the original appeal, the assessee had specifically challenged the disallowance of ₹2,30,15,007/- under section 14A and had also taken an alternative plea that, in any case, the disallowance should be restricted to Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 125/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 2004/Ahd/2014) National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2010-11 - 2– ₹27,000/- being administrative expenses. The assessee had further contended that section 14A was not applicable since investments yielding exempt income were made out of its own funds and no expenditure was incurred for earning such income, and that Rule 8D could not be applied without recording dissatisfaction by the Assessing Officer. While disposing of the appeal, the Hon’ble Tribunal, in paragraph 33 of its order, restored the issue of disallowance under section 14A to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination on the limited aspect of verifying the basis and computation of ₹27,000/- offered by the assessee towards administrative expenses. According to the assessee, in doing so, the Tribunal did not consider or follow the binding decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2008–09 and 2009– 10, wherein on identical facts the Tribunal had held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, deleted the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii), and restricted the disallowance towards administrative expenses to a fixed amount of ₹10 lakhs. 3. The assessee pointed out that copies of the Tribunal’s orders for Assessment Years 2008–09 and 2009–10 were already placed on record in the paper book and the relevant facts were also highlighted during the course of hearing through a comparative chart. It has been submitted that there was no change in facts in the year under consideration and, therefore, the principle of consistency required that the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case should have been followed. The assessee has thus contended that non- consideration of these binding precedents constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 125/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 2004/Ahd/2014) National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2010-11 - 3– 4. In view of the above, the assessee has requested the Hon’ble Tribunal either to issue a specific direction to the Assessing Officer to follow the Tribunal’s orders for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 while recomputing the disallowance under section 14A, or alternatively to recall the order to the extent of Ground No. 4 for fresh adjudication. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the issue raised by the assessee in the present Miscellaneous Application does not point out any mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. A perusal of paragraph 33 of the Tribunal’s order clearly shows that this Tribunal has duly taken into consideration the arguments of the assessee, including the contention regarding availability of interest-free funds and the plea that only a nominal amount was incurred towards administrative expenses. After considering the entirety of facts and submissions, the Tribunal, in its wisdom, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for limited verification of the basis and computation of the amount offered by the assessee. Thus, it cannot be said that any argument of the assessee was ignored or left unconsidered. 6. We further note that the assessee, through the present Miscellaneous Application, is essentially seeking that this Tribunal should have followed the orders of earlier years and should not have restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Such a plea, in our considered view, amounts to seeking a review or reconsideration of the conclusion already reached by the Tribunal on merits. It is a settled position of law that the power under section 254(2) of the Act is very limited and does not permit the Tribunal to review, revise or reappreciate its own well-reasoned order. If two views are possible or if the Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 125/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 2004/Ahd/2014) National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2010-11 - 4– assessee is aggrieved by the manner in which the issue has been adjudicated, the remedy lies elsewhere and not by way of a Miscellaneous Application. 7. It is also relevant to note, as fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, that against the earlier orders of the Tribunal wherein ad-hoc disallowances under section 14A were sustained, the assessee has already preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court on the ground that such ad- hoc disallowances are not sustainable in law. In these circumstances, it is not understandable why the assessee wants this Bench to recall it’s order by relying on the earlier decision of Tribunal in respect of which the assessee is already in appeal before the High Court on the very same issue. 8. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the Tribunal is a conscious, reasoned and speaking order, and no mistake apparent from the record has been pointed out by the assessee. The present Miscellaneous Application is nothing but an attempt to seek a review of the Tribunal’s decision, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 05/01/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (M. V. MAHADEOKAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 05/01/2026 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 125/Ahd/2024 (in ITA No. 2004/Ahd/2014) National Dairy Development Board vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2010-11 - 5– आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 19.12.2025 (Dictated on dragon software) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 19.12.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 19.12.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .12.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 05.01.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 05.01.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "