PRECISION HYDRAULICS PRIVATE LIMITED,THIRUVALLUR V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

MA 111/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Precision Hydraulics Private Limited, which appealed against an order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The original appeal (ITA No.506/Chny/2025) resulted in a partial allowance, where the tribunal reduced the disallowance on unverified expenses from 30% to 5%. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA No.111/Chny/2025) seeking to recall this order, claiming that the tribunal had not considered certain judicial precedents and facts. However, the tribunal found that all relevant materials had been considered and that the assessee had not substantiated any specific mistake in the original order that required rectification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780179 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP PINCHA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’ ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./MA No.111/Chny/2025 (In ITA No.506/Chny/2025) Assessment Years: 2016-17 Precision Hydraulics Private Limited, No.83,84 & 117, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur Dist, Tamil Nadu-601 201. [PAN: AADCP7054M] The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2) Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Sandeep Pincha, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : The MA No.111/Chny/2025 has been filed by the assessee requesting for recalling of the order in ITA No.506/Chny/2025 for AY-2016-17 dated 16.05.2025. Through the impugned order, assessee’s appeal was Partly Allowed. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. 2.0 Brief factual matrix of the case is that order u/s 143(3) was passed by the Ld.AO, inter-alia, making an addition of Rs.2,22,05,151/- on account of Printed from counselvise.com MA No.111/ Chny/2025 Page - 2 - of 4 unverified expenses. The same were calculated @ 30% of the total claimed expenses of Rs.7,40,17,171/-. After considering the various facets of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) held that as against 30% a disallowance @ 5% would be reasonable. Accordingly, he confirmed disallowance @ 5% giving the assessee relief of 25%. The impugned decision of Ld.CIT(A) was found to be fair and reasonable and fully supported by the facts on records and hence was confirmed. 3.0 It is the case of the assessee, through this Miscellaneous Application that, while arriving at the above mentioned conclusion, grave error has been committed of not considering cited judicial precedents and other facts on record. It was accordingly requested that the order be recalled and matter be remanded to the Ld.AO “.. for fresh verification of the documents already placed on records….”. 4.0 The Ld.DR vehemently argued that there is no specific mistake identified by the appellant assessee and hence the order dated 16.05.2025 is not amenable to any correction as mandated u/s 254(2) of the Act. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Section 254(2) of the Act mandates correction of any mistake which inadvertently occur in any order of the tribunal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee could not clearly specify with any demonstrative evidence as to what was the mistake in the order dated 16.05.2025 that required any rectification. The case of the appellant Printed from counselvise.com MA No.111/ Chny/2025 Page - 3 - of 4 assessee of non-consideration of material available on records including case laws is also not correct since it has been clearly alluded in the order that all the material available on records have been considered. Further, the argument of the assessee that the matter be restored back to the file of Ld.AO “.. for fresh verification of the documents already placed on records….” is also not correct and supported by facts on records. Through the above statement assessee has alluded that it had placed on records before the lower authorities certain documents in support of impugned expenses. Both Ld.AO in para 5 on page 2 of his order and Ld.CIT(A) in para 9.2 / 9.3 on pages 11 and 12 of their order clearly recorded that the assessee has not submitted any documents in support of impugned expenses. Thus, there is no case made out to rescue the assessee. Accordingly the MA raised by the assessee on the issue of disallowance of unverified expenses is found to be non-maintainable and hence dismissed. 6.0 In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 6th , October-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (ABY T VARKEY) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member Sd/- (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 6th , October-2025. KB/- Printed from counselvise.com MA No.111/ Chny/2025 Page - 4 - of 4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF Printed from counselvise.com "