PANCHSHEEL SOLVENT PVT. LTD, RAJANANDGAON,RAJANANDGAON V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL-2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

MA 15/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., the applicant, who filed miscellaneous applications against the orders passed for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The applications were filed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming that the Tribunal had dismissed their earlier appeals without providing a proper opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had been given ample time and opportunity, which they failed to utilize effectively. The Tribunal referenced several adjournments and the change of counsel as factors that contributed to the perceived lack of opportunity. The Tribunal dismissed the applications, emphasizing that a review of the order was beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711456 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: N.K Industries Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT, T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. Nos.14 & 15/RPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 342 & 343/RPR/2024) Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd. Baldeo Bagh, Nearby Old SP Office, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) PAN: AAECP8898A ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA Nos. 14 & 15/RPR/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The captioned Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by the assessee arising out of ITA Nos.342 & 343/RPR/2024 for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee by filing the miscellaneous applications for both the assessment years has submitted that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the assessee without affording proper opportunity. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that ample time was not provided to him to prepare the case and submit factual paper book. For the sake of completeness, the contents of the miscellaneous applications are extracted as follows: “1.1. The Hon'ble Bench has passed order u/s.254(1) dt.29- 10-24 in the case of the assessee for A.Y.12-13 which has involved an ex-parte assessment order passed u/s.147 rws.144 dt.9-12-19 by DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur; thereafter, the Id CIT(A), Raipur-3 has passed an ex-parte order u/s250 dt.20-5-24 by dismissing the appeal on non- appearance/ non-prosecution of the assessee, confirming the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO; thereafter, the assessee filed appeal in Form No.36 on 25-7-24 which was delay by 6 days, which is condoned; This case is having an ex-parte assessment order made u/s.147 rws.144 dt.9-12-19 & also an ex-parte appellate order u/s.250 by CIT(A), Raipur- 3 dt.20-5-24 on non-appearance/non-prosecution of the assessee; thereafter, this case has been fixed for hearing on 3-9-24 first time; thereafter, case is fixed on 4-9-24; :thereafter, on 23-9-24 case was fixed and, the revenue has sought adjournment; thereafter, on 22-10-24, AR of the Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA Nos. 14 & 15/RPR/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee has sought adjournment; thereafter, on 23-10-24, revenue sought adjournment; thereafter, on 24-10-24, AR of the assessee has sought adjournment; thereafter, on 25-10- 24, revenue sought adjournment; thereafter, on 28-10-24, case has been heard & order pronounced on 29-10-24 (i.e., the very next date of hearing) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee; In this case, since, there was change in counsel during the course of hearing before the Hon'ble Bench (i.e., withdrawal letter of earlier counsel dt.2-9-24 is enclosed), and, the Hon'ble Bench has not granted proper & reasonable time for filing of factual paper book along with necessary documents (i.e., copy of reasons recorded; copy of sanction u/s151 etc.) & for preparation of the case by the new counsel, because% of the new counsel was unaware of the facts of the case; this is glaring mistakes in the impugned order dt.29-10- 24 by the Hon’ble Bench; it is case of lack of proper opportunity given to the assessee & thus, it is violation of principle of natural justice; since it was a case of reopening u/s147/148 dt.29-3-19 i.e., after the search was conducted on 17-9-14 and the assessee has requested to the AO for providing copy of reason recorded & copy of sanction u/s151, but it was not provided by the AO and thus, in absence of any paper/ documents/ paper book before the Hon'ble Bench & by not providing adequate time for filing these papers, impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Bench is a mistaken1 passed order and it is requested to recall the impugned order and obliged. Submitted, for judicious consideration.” 3. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee. It was submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the assesse has failed to point out any mistake which is apparent on record, therefore, the captioned miscellaneous applications are liable to be dismissed. It was also submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the order of the Tribunal is well reasoned and the same does not call for any interference. 4. We have heard the submissions of the parties herein and perused the material available on record. We are of the view that the Tribunal in its Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA Nos. 14 & 15/RPR/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 own wisdom after considering the facts and relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of N.K Industries Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Nothing is emanating from the order of the Tribunal which suggests that sufficient opportunities were not provided to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel has failed to place on record any evidence which supports his aforesaid contention. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as the assessee had failed to point out any mistake which is apparent, obvious, patent and glaring from record, therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee in the garb of the aforesaid miscellaneous applications is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos.342 & 343/RPR/2024, dated 29.10.2024 which is beyond the scope of the powers of the Tribunal as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: \" ....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record........\" Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA Nos. 14 & 15/RPR/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it was held as under: \"From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that.” 5. Accordingly, both the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merit are dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA Nos. 14 & 15/RPR/2025 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 6. In the result, the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 25th July, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ /The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Printed from counselvise.com "