PRESTIGE AVENUES LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-VII, HYDERABAD

MA 60/HYD/2025

AI Insights

Prestige Avenues Ltd filed a Miscellaneous Application against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had previously upheld an addition of Rs.70,93,332 made by the Assessing Officer regarding a land purchase. The assessee contended that the Tribunal had not considered certain submissions and case law in their original decision. The Departmental Representative argued that the Tribunal had already considered all facts and evidence, and the application was essentially a request for a review, not a rectification. The Tribunal agreed with the Departmental Representative, citing a Supreme Court judgment that clarified the limitations of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780591 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd (2022) 284 Taxman 0517
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: C.A K.C. DEVDAS

Judgement Text

" MA No 60 of 2025 Prestige Avenues Ltd Page 1 of 5 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad ŵी रिवश सूद,Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद˟ समƗ | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member M.A/. No.60/Hyd/2025 (आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.741/Hyd/2011) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2006-07) Prestige Avenues Ltd Hyderabad PAN: AADCP3698P Vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle VII Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: C.A K.C. Devdas राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri T.V. Vamshidhar, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 26/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Miscellaneous Application (“M.A.”) has been filed by the Prestige Avenues Ltd (“assessee”) against the order of this Tribunal in ITA No.741/Hyd/2011 for AY 2006–07, pronounced on 06.01.2025, seeking rectification of certain alleged mistakes apparent from the record. 2. The assessee has contended that the Tribunal, while upholding the addition of Rs.70,93,332/– made by the Learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Printed from counselvise.com MA No 60 of 2025 Prestige Avenues Ltd Page 2 of 5 Income Tax (Appeal), arising out of the purchase of land at Karkhal Pahad Village, Mahbubnagar District, has not considered certain submissions and case law cited by the assessee. The assessee, therefore, prays for recalling of the order for fresh adjudication. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) invited our attention to para no.6 of the Tribunal’s order and submitted that there is no mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal, after duly considering the facts, has rendered a finding on merits. What the assessee is now seeking is a review of the decision, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd (2022) 284 Taxman 0517. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions in the M.A. and perused the order of the Tribunal. The assessee’s contention is that certain judgments and evidences relied upon in its written submissions were not considered by the Tribunal and hence constitute mistakes apparent from record. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that, the Tribunal, after duly considering the facts, has rendered a finding on merits. What the assessee is now seeking is a review of the decision, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. In this regard, we have gone through the Para no. 6 of the order of this Tribunal, which is to the following effect: “6. We have considered the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on Printed from counselvise.com MA No 60 of 2025 Prestige Avenues Ltd Page 3 of 5 either side. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have brought on record the clinching evidence found during the course of search from the premises of the assessee. These evidences found during the course of search clearly show that there was a pre-agreement with respect to the same piece of land which was the subject matter of assessment and in the said piece of evidence/agreement, the value of the land has been mentioned as Rs.12,22,222/- per acre. However, it is the case of the assessee that the land and the document though found in the premises cannot be considered for the purpose of evidence. However, the fact remains that during the course of search, these documents were found from the possession of assessee which clearly shows that previous agreement in respect of same piece of land was for a consideration of Rs. 12,22,222/-. Furthermore, it is found that the survey number and the land area sold were same in both the deeds. It is also found that one of the agreement holder and one of the purchaser to the deed of agreement to sale were the witness to the registered sale deed. The clear chain of the documents found from the premises of the assessee and the one which was registered in favour of the assessee clearly show that the value of the land has been shown at a low consideration as against the other consideration mentioned in the agreement to sale”. 5. On perusal of above, it is evident that the issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal after appreciation of facts and arguments advanced by both sides. In the present case, the Tribunal had found a direct nexus between the seized materials and the final sale deed executed by the assessee. On the basis of such factual findings, the Tribunal had decided the issue. At this juncture, it is necessary to note the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be carried out only when there is a mistake apparent from record. It does not empower the Tribunal to re-examine issues, re- appreciate evidence, or review its earlier decision. If a party is Printed from counselvise.com MA No 60 of 2025 Prestige Avenues Ltd Page 4 of 5 aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the proper remedy lies in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, and not by way of a rectification application. 6. In the present case, what the assessee is seeking is essentially a review of the decision of the Tribunal under the guise of rectification. The assessee is disputing the manner in which the Tribunal has appreciated evidence and decided the issue, which cannot be the subject-matter of a rectification petition under section 254(2) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Telecom Ltd. (supra) has clearly held that M.A. cannot be used to reopen or re-argue a concluded matter, and that the Tribunal has no power to review its order under the garb of rectification. 7. In view of the above binding precedent, we are of the considered opinion that the present M.A. filed by the assessee is devoid of merit. What the assessee seeks is nothing but a review of the order of the Tribunal, which is not permissible in law. Accordingly, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 8th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 8th October, 2025 Vinodan/sps Printed from counselvise.com MA No 60 of 2025 Prestige Avenues Ltd Page 5 of 5 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Prestige Avenues Lgtd, Rao & Sai Advocates & Tax Consultants, 6-3-570/1&2, Rock Vista, Rockdale Compound, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 2 Dy. CIT, Central Circle VII Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT -Central, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "