PRAMUKH METAL QUARRY,VADODARA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

MA 92/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pramukh Metal Quarry, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had inadvertently omitted to address certain grounds of appeal concerning disallowances related to TDS, VAT, royalty, and other payments. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and decided to recall the earlier order to adjudicate the omitted grounds. The application was supported by documents in the paper book, indicating the need for rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789988 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P. SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: KINJAL SHAH
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 40A(3); 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.92/Ahd/2025 in I.T.A. No. 394/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Pramukh Metal Quarry (Firm), Anil R. Shah (C.A.), Shreeji House,4th Floor, B/h. M.J. Library, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara [PAN No.AAJFP5189N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Kinjal Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 19.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated 21.03.2025, passed in I.T.A. No. 394/Ahd/2024, on the ground that certain mistakes apparent from the record have occurred in the said order. 2. The assessee has stated in the application that the appeal was filed on 04.03.2024 and was heard on 19.02.2025. While disposing of the appeal, the Tribunal adjudicated Ground No. 1 relating to the disallowance of cartage expenses paid to Shri Kapil Bhimsibhai Pithiya and partly allowed the appeal. However, according to the assessee, three other Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 92/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024) Pramukh Metal Quarry (Firm) vs. ITO Asst. Year –2008-09 - 2– grounds of appeal pertaining to (i) disallowance of ₹4,799/- on account of interest on TDS, VAT and royalty, (ii) disallowance of ₹42,879/- under section 40A(3) on payment made to MGVCL, and (iii) disallowance of ₹1,76,102/- under section 40(a)(ia) relating to reimbursement of interest paid by a partner—were raised in the grounds of appeal and were supported by documents in the paper book, but due to inadvertence they were not adjudicated in the Tribunal’s order. The assessee has submitted that non-adjudication of these specific grounds constitutes a mistake apparent from the record and therefore requires rectification under section 254(2). The assessee has accordingly prayed for recall of the order to this limited extent and requested that the remaining grounds be heard and decided. 3. On a careful perusal of the appeal memo and the Tribunal’s order dated 21.03.2025, we find that the assessee had indeed raised the above three grounds in the appeal, but they remained to be adjudicated while passing the earlier order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal is therefore required to recall its order for the limited purpose of adjudicating the grounds that have remained undecided. 4. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed, and the order of the Tribunal dated 21.03.2025 is recalled to the limited extent of the above-mentioned three grounds of appeal which were not adjudicated earlier. The Registry is directed to fix the Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 92/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 394/Ahd/2024) Pramukh Metal Quarry (Firm) vs. ITO Asst. Year –2008-09 - 3– appeal for fresh hearing in due course, after issuing notice to both parties. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/11/2025 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY 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 21.11.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 21.11.2025 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .11.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 25.11.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 25.11.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 25.11.2025 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 "