SANJAY GHODAWAT BUILDCON LLP,CHIPRI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI

MA 54/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Ghodawat Buildcon LLP, which filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune. The application sought rectification of a previous Tribunal order that remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-examination of the interest expenditure capitalization. The assessee contended that the Tribunal had incorrectly stated their position during the hearing. However, the Tribunal upheld its original decision, stating that the matter was remanded based on the need for further examination of facts, which does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790606 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MILIND DEBAJE VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANTH G.S. VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Rectification of order

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.54/PUN/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.1337/PUN/2024) \u0001नधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sanjay Ghodawat Buildcon LLP, Plot No.438, Chipri, Jaysingpur – 416 101 Maharashtra PAN : ACJFS6183R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji Applicant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The assessee has moved this Miscellaneous application against the Tribunal order dated 21.04.2025 passed in the appeal filed by Revenue seeking rectification of mistake apparent from record. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the time of hearing ld. AR has not made a prayer for remanding the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) instead made submissions for upholding the order of ld.CIT(A). 3. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of Tribunal. Assessee by : Shri Prashanth G.S. (virtual) Revenue by : Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual) Date of hearing : 21.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 02.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.54/PUN/2025 Sanjay Ghodawat Buildcon LLP 2 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the Tribunal order dated 21.04.2025. We find in para 8 of the Tribunal order, the words that “ld. Counsel for the assessee was fair enough to accept that matter needs to be restored to the CIT(A) for one more round of adjudication” deserves to be expunged. Therefore, we modify para No.8 and the same is to be read as under : “8. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of ld.CIT(A).” 5. So far as the remanding the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) is concerned, we find the Tribunal has categorically held in para 10 that there is no clear finding of ld.CIT(A) as to why the total interest expenditure of Rs.13.34 crore should not have been capitalized towards the work in progress of the two projects and therefore has rightly remanded the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for re-examination with all necessary details giving liberty to the assessee to file additional evidence. Once the Tribunal while deciding the issue has given reasons for remanding the matter, it has been decided on merits and therefore it is not available for rectification u/s. 254(2) of the Act as the Tribunal has no powers to review its decision. The limited power available to the Tribunal u/s.254(2) of the Act is to correct any mistakes apparent from record. Since the issue Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No.54/PUN/2025 Sanjay Ghodawat Buildcon LLP 3 has been decided on facts, it cannot be considered as a mistake apparent from record. Hence, we find no merit in the present Miscellaneous Application and the same is dismissed. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 02nd day of December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/-/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 02nd December, 2025 Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "