RUGBY REGENCY P.LTD,NEW DELHI V. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-21, NEW DELHI

MA 69/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Rugby Regency P. Ltd., the appellant, seeking a recall of the Tribunal's order dated 25.01.2024 concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The original dispute centered on the denial of depreciation on a windmill purchased through a slump sale agreement. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had both denied the depreciation claim, leading to the Tribunal's initial decision. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the conditions of the slump sale agreement were not fulfilled within the relevant financial year, and thus, the assessee did not establish ownership and use of the asset for the purposes of business during the financial year 2014-15. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, emphasizing that the application was an attempt to re-argue the case rather than correct a mistake apparent from the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669164 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Ras Bihari Bansal vs. C.I.T. (2007) 293 ITR 365, C.I.T. vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 163
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: R.S. SINGHVI; SATYAJIT GOEL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F-FRIDAY’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 69/Del/2024 IN IN ITA NO. 653/DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s Rugby Regency P. Ltd., 37, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi – 110 024 (PAN: AAGCR5908K) Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-21, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA & Shri Satyajit Goel, CA Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT : By way of this Miscellaneous Application assessee seeks recall of the order of this Tribunal passed in Assessee’s I.T.A. No. 653/Del/2019 for AY 2015-16 vide order dated 25.01.2024. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contentions made in the said Misc. Application, which read as under:- 2 | P a g e 3 | P a g e 4 | P a g e 5 | P a g e 6 | P a g e 7 | P a g e 8 | P a g e 9 | P a g e 10 | P a g e 11 | P a g e 12 | P a g e 13 | P a g e 2. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue stated that the Bench has passed a well-reasoned and speaking order on the basis of the arguments as well as after perusing the records available by upholding the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) vide ground no. 1 and partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee. He further stated that Ld. Counsel for the Assessee did not establish any mistake apparent on record and by way of this Misc. Application only seeks review in the garb of rectification which is not permissible under the law. Therefore, the Misc. Application filed by the Assessee may be dismissed accordingly. 14 | P a g e 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records available with us especially the Tribunal’s order dated 25.01.2024 passed in the corresponding main Appeal being ITA No. 653/Del/2019 (AY 2015-16) alongwith the contentions raised by the assessee in the present Misc. Application, which are reproduced as aforesaid, we are of the considered view that Tribunal vide its order dated 25.01.2024 has adjudicated the ground no. 1 in detail and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, by upholding the Ld. CIT(A)’s finding on the issue in dispute as under:- “8. We have given a careful thought to the rival submissions and perused the records. The assessee claimed depreciation on wind mill @ 80% on the addition of Rs. 32,40,71,403/- for 180 days at Rs. 12,96,28,561/- which the Ld. AO negatived. During assessment proceedings, on query, it was submitted by the assessee that it purchased 12 MW wind mill from M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. (APIL) through slump sale agreement dated 23.03.2015 and copy of the agreement was submitted. The Ld. AO examined the said agreement which was subject to fulfilment of all obligations enumerated therein by the transferor company. The Ld. AO found that as per the stipulation in the agreement the requisite obligation/ activities could not be achieved / completed before the end of the Financial Year i.e. 31.03.2015 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 under consideration. This was confirmed in enquiry made by the Ld. AO from the seller APIL. The Ld. AO therefore did not accept the explanation of the assessee that it had purchased the wind mill during the Financial Year relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 due to lack of any supporting document and the fact that enquiry by the Ld. AO revealed that no sale of wind mill was recorded in the books of the seller APIL for Financial Year 2014- 15. Admittedly, seller company APIL has claimed depreciation on wind mill during the A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore denial of impugned depreciation in the hands of the assessee is justified. The contention raised during appellate proceedings have been 15 | P a g e dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A) by recording cogent reasons. The decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Sivakami (supra) will not render assistance to the assessee as in that case the assessee established ownership of buses by documentary evidence whereas in the case at hand purchase of wind mill in the Financial Year 2014-15 could not be proved with documentary evidence. The twin conditions precedent, namely ownership and use of the asset i.e. wind mill, for purposes of assessee's business during the Financial Year 2014- 15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 are not satisfied in the case of the assessee. We, therefore decline to interfere and decide ground No. 1 and its sub-grounds against the assessee.” 4. We note that the Tribunal has considered this issue by noting that as per the conditions of the agreement, the requisite obligations/activities were not achieved before the end of the financial year 2014-15 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. This came to notice of the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the agreement was not complied with. It is a fact that Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee that it had purchased the windmill during the relevant financial year 2014-15, which is based on long submissions of relevant documents and facts. Another issue discussed by the Tribunal is that the seller company M/s APIL has claimed depreciation on windmill as on 31.03.2015 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. These facts were noted by the Tribunal by adjudicating the issue on facts. 5. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions and after perusing the contents of the misc. application raised by the assessee, as reproduced above as well as findings of the Tribunal, we are of the view that there is no apparent mistake in Tribunal’s well reasoned and speaking order dated 25.01.2024, hence, the same do not require any rectification. We are further of the view that by way of this Misc. 16 | P a g e Application Assessee seek review in the garb of rectification which is not permissible under the law. In this regard, we find that it is a settled law that review in the garb of rectification is not permissible u/s. 254(2) of the I.T. Act. 6. We draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s exposition on the scope of rectification u/s 254(2) as reported in the case of Ras Bihari Bansal vs. C.I.T. (2007) 293 ITR 365 is as under:- “Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, enables the concerned to rectify any “mistake apparent from the record”. It is well settled that an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under this section. Similarly, failure of the tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion, is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment. The mere fact that the tribunal had not allowed a deduction, even if the conclusion is wrong, will be no ground for moving an application under section 254(2) of the Act. Further, in the garb of an application for rectification, the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and re-argue the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of the section.” 7. We further draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of C.I.T. vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 163 has dealt with the issue as under:- “Under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. 17 | P a g e However, it is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the prerequisite for exercise of either power may be similar (a mistake apparent from the record), by its very nature the power to rectify a mistake cannot result in the recall and review of the order sought to be rectified.” 8. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, we find that there is no mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal and assessee is seeking a review of the Tribunal’s order in the garb of rectification, which is not permissible u/s. 254(2) of the I.T. Act and, therefore, the present Miscellaneous Application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed as such. 9. In the result, the Misc. Application filed by the Assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 25.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi 18 | P a g e "