SAKET ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD V. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

MA 42/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Saket Engineers Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, who filed two Miscellaneous Applications against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment years 2021-22 and 2018-19. The applications sought rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming that the Tribunal had not considered a relevant case (MTR Maiya's v. ITO) while deciding their appeals. The Departmental Representative argued that the Tribunal had relied on a Supreme Court decision, which was binding and had been followed correctly. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and found that the Impugned Case had indeed been referenced and considered, leading to the dismissal of the MAs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772064 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: MTR Maiya's v. ITO, Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, CIT vs M/S. Reliance Telecom Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACHIN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P. JITENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद, न् याययक सदस् य एवं श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया, लेखा सदस् य क े समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. Nos.41 & 42/Hyd/2025 आ.अपी.सं / In ITA Nos.992 & 993/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2021-22 & 2018-19) M/s. Saket Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad. PAN:AAFCS3079K Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri P. Jitendra Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr.Sachin Kumar, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 22/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: These two Miscellaneous Applications (“MAs”) have been filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 992 & 993/Hyd/2024 for the assessment years 2021-22 & 2018–19 dated 03.12.2024, seeking rectification of the said order under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.41 & 42/Hyd/2025 2 2. The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) submitted that while deciding the appeals, this Tribunal did not consider the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of MTR Maiya’s v. ITO (TS-7893-ITAT-2023(Bangalore)-O) (“Impugned Case”). According to him, the non-consideration of the said order constitutes a mistake apparent from record, warranting recall of the Tribunal’s order. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) submitted that the Tribunal, while deciding the appeals, had relied upon the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016). Since the Tribunal had already decided the matter by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the contention of the assessee that the Impugned Case was not considered does not amount to a mistake apparent from record. It was further submitted that what the assessee seeks is a review of the order, which is impermissible under section 254(2) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.41 & 42/Hyd/2025 3 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have gone through para nos. 2 to 4 of the impugned order of this Tribunal which is to the following effect : “ 2. The assessee has raised common ground for both the assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the only ground raised in ITA No.992/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2021-22 read as under : “The first appellate authority erred in confirming the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the judgment in the case of M/s. MTR Maiya’s Vs. Income Tax Officer (TS7893 – ITAT-2023 (Bengaluru)-O) that was submitted during the course of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private company engaged in the business of Construction. Assessee company has filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 14.03.2022 admitting total income of Rs.1,72,52,830/- and thereafter, filed revised return of income on the same day, declaring total income of Rs.1,72,52,830/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,10,34,190/- raising a demand for Rs.7,44,670/- interalia making disallowance of Rs.2,45,454/- u/s 23 of the Act, Rs.31,20,557/- u/s 41 of the Act and Rs.4,15,348/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, the Asst.Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengalore had passed intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dt.24.08.2022. Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.41 & 42/Hyd/2025 4 4. Aggrieved with such intimation order, assessee filed an appeal before the LD.CIT(A), who granted partial relief to the assessee. With respect to the ground raised by the assessee before the Tribunal i.e., disallowance of Rs.4,15,348/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, LD.CIT(A) has held as under : “6.3.3 I have considered additional ground raised by the AR during the course of appellate proceedings and written submissions of the AR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016) pronounced on 12-10-2022, adjudicated the issue of disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble apex court upheld the disallowance of employees contributions to EPF and ESI is if these contributions are not deposited before the due date prescribed in the respective statutes. Regarding the appellant's claim about the difference in dates between the journal entry for liability recognition of salary and the actual payment of salary (when the entry for recovery of employee's contribution of EPF and ESI is made), it is seen that the appellant is following Mercantile System of Accounting and under this system, any sum received by the assessee from employees as contribution to EPF and ESI should be recognized as Received on the day of salary liability recognition. The employee's contributions to EPF and ESI are always held by the employer in a fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the actual payment of salary is not necessary for it to be recognized Income. The liability recognition of salary automatically results in the employee's contribution being deemed as the employer's income. Therefore, respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.41 & 42/Hyd/2025 5 Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016), the addition of Rs. 4,15,345/-is confirmed and the ground of appeal no -3 and the additional ground are dismissed.” 5. On perusal of above, we find that at para no. 2 of the impugned order, the Tribunal had reproduced the grounds raised by the assessee, which itself contained reference to the Impugned Case. Further, at para no. 4 of the order, the Tribunal has specifically noted the grounds and proceeded to decide the issue by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (supra). The grievance of the assessee is that the impugned case was not specifically discussed in the order. However, once the Tribunal has reproduced the ground containing the impugned case at para no. 2, made reference to the said ground at para no. 4 of the order, and thereafter followed the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it cannot be stated that the Tribunal has not considered the impugned case. Accordingly, in our considered view, there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. The remedy sought by the assessee is, in essence, a review of the earlier decision, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. We further draw support from the judgment of the Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.41 & 42/Hyd/2025 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs M/S. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2022) 284 TAXMAN 0517 (SC) dated 03.12.2021, wherein it has been 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. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present MAs filed by the assessee. 6. In the result, both the MAs filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th Aug., 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 28.08.2025. * Reddy gp Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. M/s. Saket Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Unit 207, 2nd Floor, Ashoka Bhoopal Chambers, SP Road, Hyderabad-500003 2. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. 3. Pr.CIT (Central), Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos.41 & 42/Hyd/2025 7 Printed from counselvise.com "