PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED CHANDUPATLA,VILLAGE CHANDUPATLA V. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

MA 33/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited, which filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order that dismissed their appeal due to a delay of 826 days in filing before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee argued that the Tribunal did not consider the exclusion of the limitation period as per a Supreme Court directive. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee's case did not fall within the specified period for limitation extension and that the delay computation was not contested during the original appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification under section 254(2) is limited to correcting apparent mistakes and does not allow for a review of the decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716841 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs M/S. Reliance Telecom Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURPREET SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P. KARTHIK RAMANA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.33/Hyd/2025 (In आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.836/Hyd/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/s. Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited, Chandupatla. PAN:AACAP0382R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri P. Karthik Ramana, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/ Date of hearing: 08/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ Pronouncement: 20/08/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This Miscellaneous Application (“M.A.”) has been filed by M/s. Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited (“the assessee”) under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.12.2024 in ITA No. 836/Hyd/2024 for the assessment year 2017–18. Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.33/Hyd/2025 2 2. The M.A. filed by the assessee under section 254 (2) of the Act is reproduced as under : Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.33/Hyd/2025 3 Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.33/Hyd/2025 4 Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.33/Hyd/2025 5 Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.33/Hyd/2025 6 3. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay of 826 days in filing appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”), the Tribunal did not consider the period of limitation excluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 in M.A. No. 21 of 2022 and therefore there is a mistake apparent from record. 4. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly opposed the M.A., submitting that through the present M.A., the assessee is effectively seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. The Ld. DR argued that the alleged “mistake” Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.33/Hyd/2025 7 now being pointed out was neither raised as a specific ground of appeal nor argued at the time of hearing, and hence cannot be agitated in proceedings under section 254(2). 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of M.A. filed by the assessee, we do not find any mistake pointed out by the assessee in the said M.A. However, during his submission, the Ld. AR pointed out the mistake regarding figure of 826 days of delay. It is observed that the figure of 826 days of delay in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) has been taken from the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Against this computation of number of days of delay, no specific ground was raised by the assessee in the original appeal before the Tribunal. Further, during the course of hearing of the appeal, no argument or submission was advanced by the Ld. AR on this aspect before us. 6. Further, the date of the order of the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) was 16.12.2019, and accordingly, the last date for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was 15.01.2020. As per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.33/Hyd/2025 8 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 in M.A. No. 21 of 2022, the extension of limitation applied only to cases where the limitation period fell between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. The case of the assessee does not fall within the limitation period specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the plea that the Tribunal failed to apply the said Supreme Court decision, although not raised during the appellate proceedings, is factually untenable. 7. The scope of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act is confined to correcting an apparent mistake from record and does not extend to reviewing the earlier decision of the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs M/S. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2022) 284 TAXMAN 0517 (SC) dated 03.12.2021, has held that while considering the application under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. The plea now sought to be raised by the assessee amounts to seeking a review, which is not Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.33/Hyd/2025 9 permissible as per the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Even otherwise, the delay computation of 826 days was a finding based on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the material before us in the original appeal. Since no challenge to that computation was either taken as a ground or argued, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any apparent mistake in recording such finding in its order dated 20.12.2024. 9. In view of the above, we find no mistake apparent from record warranting rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. The M.A. filed by the assessee is therefore dismissed. 10. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th Aug., 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 20.08.2025 * Reddy gp Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.33/Hyd/2025 10 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. M/s. Primary Agricultural Credit Society Limited, Chandupatla Village, Bhongir, Nalgonda-508 216 2. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet. 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com "