NAVEEN NARANG,DELHI V. PCIT (CENTRAL), - 3, DELHI

MA 410/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Naveen Narang, the appellant, who filed a miscellaneous application to recall the Tribunal's earlier order dismissing his appeal against the PCIT's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The original appeal concerned the assessment year 2016-17, where the assessee's income was significantly increased following a search and seizure operation. The assessee contended that two grounds in his appeal were not adjudicated, and his submissions were overlooked. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and allowed the recall of the order to address the unadjudicated grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474940 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Star India Pvt. Ltd. v Income tax Appellant tribunal, M/S BBC World (India) Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT Circle -2(1), New Delhi, Rohan Tooling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO< Ward-21(30 New Delhi, M/S Chennai petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. The JCIT, Chennai
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT GOEL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 263; 153; 132; 153A; 139

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No. 410/Del/2024 ITA no. 1560/del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Naveen Narang 291, Gujrawala Town Part-III, New Delhi -110009 PAN No. AADPN0344D Vs PCIT(Central)-3 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Amit Goel, CA Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sr. DR Date of hearing: 28/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27 /03/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This miscellaneous application has moved by the assessee to recall the order of this Tribunal dated 03-10-2024 in ITA No.1560/del/2024 pertaining to A.Y.2016-17. 2. The contention of the assessee is that ground no 5&9 have been taken by the assessee in the appeal was not adjudicated by the tribunal. As per the Assessee’s representative, there are two principal apparent and glaring mistake which are noticeable from the face of the order of the tribunal In ITA 2 No.1560/Del/2024 dated 03-10-2024 that the specific ground taken in appeal memo numbering 5&9 was not decided at the time of the disposal of the appeal, secondly at the time of the disposal the submission submitted by the assessee was not considered. 3.The assessee has taken the ground no 5 &9 in appeal as under: Ground No. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. PCIT erred in setting a side the assessment order without appreciating the fact that the same was passed after taking due approval u/s 153D of the Act. Ground No.9 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by PCIT u/s 263 is liable to be quashed as the original assessment order it self is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that non-adjudication of the ground is a mistake apparent from the record and is amenable to rectification u/s 254 clause (2) of the Act. He, therefore, prayed that mistake may be rectified and the appeal be fixed for hearing. Reliance has placed on the following judgments: (i) Star India Pvt. Ltd. v Income tax Appellant tribunal 2024(3) TMI 110 Bombay High Court 3 (ii) M/S BBC World (India) Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT Circle -2(1), New Delhi 2023(3) TMI 1421 ITAT Delhi (iii)Rohan Tooling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO< Ward-21(30 New Delhi 2023(2) TMI 1151 ITAT Delhi (iv) M/S Chennai petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. The JCIT, Chennai 2020 (4) TMI 815 ITAT Chennai 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR stated that the appeal was decided after considering the submission submitted by the assessee. 6.Brief facts and the back ground of the case are that the assessee filed return of income u/s 139 of the Act declaring income of Rs 57,91,510/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee. In the response of the notice u/s 153A of the Act the assessee has filed the return of income declaring the same income of Rs 57,91,510/-. The assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 153 A/ 143(3) of the Act at income of Rs 14.93.82.868/- after making the additions. Ld. PCIT issued notice dated 26-03- 2024 u/s 263 of the Act asking the assessee to show cause as why the aforesaid assessment order dated 30-03-2022 should not be revised as the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld. PCIT did not agree with the contention of the assessee and passed order dated 30-03-2024 u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee has filed the appeal against 4 the order of the ld. PCIT which was dismissed by the order dated 03-10-2024 by the tribunal. After due consideration, we observed that the issue raised by the assessee that ground No. 5 & 9 were not adjudicated. For the sake of complete justice, we are inclined to recall this appeal with limited purpose for adjudication of the grounds no. 5 & 9. Therefore, registry is directed to post this appeal in due course after informing both the parties. 7. In the light of the submission made and on appraisal of the appellate order, we find merit in the plea of the assessee. Hence, the Misc. application is allowed. 8. In the result, the captioned Mis. Application is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. PS* Date:- 27.03.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "