PBG INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI, DELHI

MA 23/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves PBG International Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, who filed a miscellaneous application to recall an earlier order of the Tribunal which had remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The original dispute pertained to the assessment year 2016-17, where the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had made a significant addition to the assessee's income, alleging bogus purchases. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal, leading to the Tribunal's initial decision to remand the case back to CIT(A). The assessee's application argued that the Tribunal had mistakenly discussed adding a profit element to the income from these alleged bogus purchases, which was not their request. The Tribunal, acknowledging the need for justice and fair play, decided to restore the appeal to its original number, allowing for a comprehensive decision on the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790036 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYJEET GOEL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No. 23 /Del/2025 ITA no. 2890/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 PBG International Pvt. Ltd. B- 4B DDA Flats Munirka Delhi PAN no. AABCP8752E Vs ITO, Ward19(1) Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Satyjeet Goel Adv. Sh. Anurag Goyal, CA Respondent by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 07/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27/11/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This miscellaneous application has moved by the assessee to recall the order of this Tribunal dated 20-12-2024 in ITA No. 2890/Del/2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The contention of the assessee is that the appeal was decided by order dated 20-12-2024 and matter was sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide a fresh after being heard to the assessee. In the application the assessee stated that at the time of hearing the Printed from counselvise.com 2 Hon’ble tribunal was discussed, to add the 3-4 % addition of the income of the assessee as profit element on the alleged bogus purchase. This facts can be verified with Audio/Video recording of the proceedings. This averment also stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted the assessee had prayed for quashing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and not for remanding back to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication. 5. The Ld. DR strongly objected the application and submitted that under Section 254(2) of the Act, the apparent mistake of the fact may be rectified, but in this case the assessee wants to review the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible as per law. 6.Brief facts and the back ground of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income on 14-10-2016 declaring total income of rs.4,42,670/- along with computation of income, Auditors’ Report and Audited Account of the assessee. In the compliance of the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 the assessee had stated that original return, filed by the assessee be treated as return of income filed u/s 148 of the Act. The AO made the addition of Rs.2,85,52,272/-. Aggrieved the order of the AO, assessee filed Printed from counselvise.com 3 the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who order 29-04-2024 dismissed the same. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed the appeal before the tribunal, which was remand back to the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contents of the miscellaneous application and the submissions of the Counsel. There was no such facts which was stated, by the Ld. AR was not found in the log book, but justice should not be done but it seems to be done, therefore in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal on its original number to decide on merits. Therefore, the application filed by the assessee to recall the order and restore the appeal its original number is allowed. The appeal is restored on its original number. Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing before the appropriate bench. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. PS* Date:- 27.11.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` Printed from counselvise.com 4 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "