RR CHARITABLE TRUST,HYDERABAD V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

MA 108/HYD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves R.R. Charitable Trust, which filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to rectify what it claimed were mistakes in an earlier Tribunal order. The Trust had previously withdrawn an appeal, which it later sought to reinstate, claiming the withdrawal was due to an inadvertent error by its authorized representative. The Tribunal, however, found that the withdrawal was valid and that the Trust's attempt to recall the order was not permissible under the law, as it constituted an attempt to review the order rather than rectify a mistake.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773832 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2022
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. Sourashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADAN MOHAN MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 12A; 80G

Judgement Text

"INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.108/Hyd./2022 Arising out of ITA.No.1708/Hyd./2019 R.R. Charitable Trust, Hyderabad - 500 029. PAN AACTR3251L vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA, P Murali Mohan Rao For Revenue : Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 12.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. : The above Miscellaneous Application No. 108/Hyd./2022 has been filed by the Assessee viz., R.R. Charitable Trust requesting to rectify the mistakes crept in the Order of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2021 passed in ITA.No.1708/ Hyd./2019 by exercising it’s jurisdiction u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA.No.108/Hyd./2022 2. The contents of assessee’s Miscellaneous Application are as under : “The assessee “RR Charitable Trust” is on rolls with the IT Department with TAN No.AACTR3251L. The assessee has been registered u/s 12A of the Act in the year 2014. Later, the assessee has filed an application in Form 10G for seeking the registration u/s 80G of the IT Act, 1961 on 30.04.2019. Subsequently, the CIT (Exemptions) vide its order dated 31.10.2019 has denied the application of the assessee on the ground that no charitable activities were carried out by the trust. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(Exemptions) the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. The assessee, however, misinterpreting the approval granted by the CIT (Exemptions) vide its order dated 01.07.2020 under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has withdrawn the appeal fled tee the assessment year 2019-2020 through the withdrawal petition dated 27.04.2021. In this regard, we would like to submit that Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA.No.108/Hyd./2022 the approval so granted under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was effective from 01.02.2000 only and the same was misconceived by the assessee as applicable from the A.Y 2019-20. As the withdrawal Petition was filed for the A.Y 2019-20 by not giving due regard to the exemption granted. Without prejudice to above, it must be pertinent to mention that the petition for withdrawal filed on 27.04.2021 was not signed by the appellant-trust and was in actual fact signed by the Authorised representative, by inadvertence. Thus, with respect to the above cited issue, we humbly request your Honors to kindly recall the appeal and the same may be heard since the appellant-trust is not withdrawing the appeal. Inconvenience caused in this matter is very much regretted.” 3. CA, P Murali Mohan Rao, Learned Counsel for the Assessee drew the attention of the Bench on the above contents of the Miscellaneous Application and submitted that, admittedly, the assessee vide letter dated 27.04.2021 seeks permission of the Tribunal to withdraw it’s appeal Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA.No.108/Hyd./2022 ITA.No.1708/Hyd.2019 and the same has been permitted by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.05.2021. He submitted that, the same is an inadvertent error by the Authorised Representative of the Assessee Trust and not signed by the Assessee Trust. Therefore, in the interest of justice, he pleaded that, the order of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2021 passed in ITA.No.1708/2019 may please be recalled. 4. Sri Madan Mohan Meena, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, strongly opposed to recall the order of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2021 passed in ITA.No.1708/2019. He submitted that, the appeal has been withdrawn by the appellant trust itself vide letter dated 27.04.2021 which is evident from para-2 of the order of the Tribunal. He submitted that, under the garb of rectification, the Tribunal has no power to recall it’s own order. He, therefore, pleaded that the appellant trust has failed to make-out a case that a mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal. He, therefore, submitted that, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is devoid of merits and Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA.No.108/Hyd./2022 liable to be dismissed as there is no error or apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2021. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant contents of Miscellaneous Application, in light of Order of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2021 passed in ITA.No.1708/Hyd./2019. We find that, there is no dispute between the parties that, the appeal ITA.No.1708/Hyd./ 2019 of the appellant trust was dismissed by the Tribunal as withdrawn vide order dated 13.05.2021. Now, the appellant trust seeks to recall the order of the Tribunal on the ground of an inadvertent error by the Counsel for the Assessee which is not permissible as per law. Further, the petition filed by the assessee seeking for recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 13.05.2021 is nothing, but, to an attempt to review the order of the Tribunal in the garb of rectification which is not permissible in law in light of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs., Sourashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) and CIT vs., Reliance Telecom Ltd,., [2021] 133 Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA.No.108/Hyd./2022 taxmann.com 41 (SC). Thus, we dismiss the M.A. filed by the assessee. 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application No.108/Hyd./2022 of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 24th September, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. R.R. Charitable Trust, Hyderabad. C/o. P. Murali & Co. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/1/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 3. Addl. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad. 4. The DR ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad 5. Guard File //By Order// //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "