RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LTD.,BHAVNAGAR V. ACIT, CIR-1, BHAVNAGAR NOW ACIT, CENT.CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

MA 75/AHD/2025

AI Insights

Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 17.07.2025, which had not addressed the ground concerning the validity of reopening under section 147. The assessee argued that the reopening was without jurisdiction, affecting all consequential proceedings. The Tribunal, however, noted that the ground was not argued during the original hearing, and thus, there was no obligation to adjudicate on it. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the reassessment was based on substantial and credible material indicating that the assessee was involved in bogus transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that it could not revisit or re-adjudicate issues under the guise of rectification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790304 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMAN KUMAR GOYAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Reason to believe; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.75/Ahd/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2069/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. Plot No. D/60, Rudra House, 2nd Floor, Nr. Ram Mantra Mandir, Kaliabid, Bhavnagar-364002 Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar (Now ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad) [PAN No.AAGCM9245A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Raman Kumar Goyal, AR Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 26.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Act seeking rectification of certain mistakes which, according to the assessee, are apparent from the record in the order passed by the Hon’ble ITAT on 17.07.2025 in ITA No. 2069/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee in the present Miscellaneous Application has submitted that while the Tribunal has reproduced all the grounds of appeal in paragraph 2 of its order, it has failed to adjudicate Ground No. 1 relating to the validity of reopening under section 147 of the Act. The assessee states that this ground specifically raises the issue that the reopening was without jurisdiction and, therefore, all Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 75/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 2069/Ahd/2024) Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2018-19 - 2– consequential proceedings should stand vitiated, and non-adjudication of such a jurisdictional ground amounts to a mistake apparent from record. The assessee has also relied on several judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Courts and various ITAT Benches, to assert that non-consideration of a jurisdictional ground or omission to adjudicate specific grounds raised in appeal constitutes a mistake apparent from record warranting recall of the order under section 254(2). It is submitted that multiple Benches of the Tribunal have recalled orders where grounds were not adjudicated or where subsequent binding decisions of jurisdictional High Courts or the Supreme Court affected the outcome of the matter. In view of these submissions, the assessee prayed that the Tribunal may rectify the mistakes apparent from the record by recalling the order dated 17.07.2025 and adjudicating Ground No. 1 and other contentions raised in the Miscellaneous Application. 2. After calling for complete case records and records of proceedings at the time of hearing, we observe that detailed arguments were taken by Sr. Advocate Tushar Hemani at the time of arguments and no arguments were taken with respect to Ground relating to challenge of 147 proceedings. Therefore, if despite detailed opportunity of hearing and arguments done by the Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing, a particular ground was not argued, then the Bench cannot be expected to adjudicate on each and every ground even if no arguments were taken during the course of hearing. Without prejudice, in the present case the assessment was reopened under section 148 on the basis of information that the assessee had shown purchases of Rs. 39,00,60,232/- from four parties suspected to be issuing bogus bills. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 75/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 2069/Ahd/2024) Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2018-19 - 3– During reassessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee could not produce confirmations from these suppliers and that enquiries conducted through notices under section 133(6) and physical verification by the DVU revealed that the assessee could substantiate actual supply of goods. Reports from the Investigation Wing and the GST Department further confirmed that all four entities were merely accommodation-entry providers engaged in paper transactions without movement of goods. In appeal, CIT(A) the assessee could not prove actual delivery of goods and that field enquiries clearly established that the suppliers were not genuine and had only issued bogus bills. Therefore, even on merits, we find no substance that in the instant facts, there was “ no reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment, when the facts on face of it show that the assessee was clearly engaged in bogus transactions, which was coming from Report of Investigation Wing, the issuance of notices u/s 133(6) of the Act and field enquiries by the Income Tax Department. 3. In view of the above facts, we find that the assessee, through the present Miscellaneous Application filed under section 254(2) of the Act, is essentially seeking a review of the well-reasoned order of the Tribunal dated 17.07.2025. The power of rectification under section 254(2) is extremely limited and can be exercised only for correcting mistakes which are glaring, obvious and apparent from the record. It is well settled that the Tribunal has no power to revisit or re-adjudicate issues or to undertake a review in the guise of rectification. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) has categorically held that section 254(2) does not permit rehearing or re-arguing of the matter, and Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 75/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 2069/Ahd/2024) Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2018-19 - 4– rectification cannot be used to correct alleged errors of reasoning. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, therefore, confined strictly to rectification of patent mistakes and not to re-examine matters already concluded. 4. After examining the records, including the log-book maintained at the time of hearing, we find that detailed arguments were advanced by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the assessee, but no submissions whatsoever were made on Ground No. 1 relating to challenge to reopening under section 147. The Tribunal, therefore, had no occasion to adjudicate upon an issue which was never argued. It is a settled principle of law that when a party, despite full opportunity, does not press or argue a ground, the Tribunal is not obliged to render findings on such a ground. Consequently, non-adjudication of an unargued ground cannot be treated as a “mistake apparent from record.” 5. Even otherwise, and without prejudice, we note that the reassessment was initiated based on substantial and credible material, including specific information that the assessee had claimed bogus purchases of Rs. 39,00,60,232/- followed by independent enquiries under section 133(6), physical verification by the DVU, and reports of the Investigation Wing and the GST Department, all of which confirmed that the suppliers were accommodation-entry operators and that no actual movement of goods had occurred. These findings were independently affirmed by the CIT(A). In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no “reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment. Thus, even on merits, the assessee’s contention does not give rise to any mistake apparent from the record. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No. 75/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 2069/Ahd/2024) Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Year –2018-19 - 5– 6. Since the assessee is effectively seeking a re-hearing on an issue that was never argued and attempting to reopen and review the final conclusion of the Tribunal, the same falls squarely outside the limited scope of section 254(2). The settled law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC), clarifies that rectification cannot convert the Tribunal into a review authority. 7. Accordingly, we hold that no mistake apparent from the record has been demonstrated by the assessee. The Miscellaneous Application is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. 8. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27/11/2025 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 Printed from counselvise.com "