SESHAM RAMANAIAH,PRAKASAM V. ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

MA 85/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by Shri Sesham Ramanaiah against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ongole, concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The application sought rectification of an earlier Tribunal order, claiming that certain legal grounds raised during the appeal were not adjudicated. These grounds pertained to the validity of the issuance of notice under section 148 and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in the absence of a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and recalled the order to address these specific legal issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791780 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: S.E. Investments Ltd. v. ACIT, 18 taxmann.com 126
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SWATHI SHEELA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" MA No 85 of 2025 Sesham Ramanaiah Page 1 of 5 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Įी ͪवजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं Įी मधुसूदन सावͫडया, लेखा सदè य क े सम¢ । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member M.A. No.85/Hyd/2025 (आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1062/Hyd/2025) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Sesham Ramanaiah ONGOLE PAN: AZIPR0354H Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 ONGOLE (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: C A Swathi Sheela राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 28/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Miscellaneous Application (“MA”) is filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No.1062/Hyd/2025 dated 08.10.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17 under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The assessee contends that there is a mistake apparent from record in the impugned order of the Tribunal, as Printed from counselvise.com MA No 85 of 2025 Sesham Ramanaiah Page 2 of 5 certain legal grounds specifically raised by the assessee have remained unadjudicated. 2. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had raised a specific legal ground in Ground No.7 of the original grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act in view of the provisions of section 151A of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee had also raised an additional legal ground in Ground No.17 of the additional grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) to complete the assessment in the absence of issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Inviting our attention to these grounds as filed before the Tribunal, the Ld. AR submitted that both these legal issues go to the very root of the assessment and were duly raised by the assessee, but the Tribunal, while passing the order on 08.10.2025, did not adjudicate these legal grounds. It was accordingly argued that the non-consideration of specific grounds amounts to a mistake apparent from the record which requires rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal is duty-bound to adjudicate each and every ground raised by the assessee and failure to adjudicate a legal ground is a recognized error apparent from the record warranting recall of the order. Printed from counselvise.com MA No 85 of 2025 Sesham Ramanaiah Page 3 of 5 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the Tribunal has already adjudicated the matter on merits and, therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the record in the impugned order. It was submitted that what the assessee is seeking through this MA is a review of the earlier order which is not permissible within the limited scope of section 254(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR further relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S.E. Investments Ltd. v. ACIT, 18 taxmann.com 126, wherein it was held that the shortness of an order does not by itself mean that an issue has not been adjudicated so as to justify recall under section 254(2) of the Act. Relying on this decision, it was submitted that there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal and the MA deserves dismissal. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. It is evident from the records that the assessee had raised a specific legal ground in Ground No.7 of the original grounds challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued without satisfying the statutory mandate of section 151A of the Act. We further find from the additional grounds that Ground No.17 raised an additional legal challenge to the validity of the assessment on the ground that no notice under section 143(2) of Printed from counselvise.com MA No 85 of 2025 Sesham Ramanaiah Page 4 of 5 the Act was issued to the assessee. Both these legal issues go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Ld. A.O and are purely legal in nature. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal dated 08.10.2025, we find that the Tribunal adjudicated the matter on merits but did not adjudicate the above two legal grounds raised by the assessee. In our considered view, non-adjudication of a ground specifically raised in the appeal constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. We therefore hold that there is a mistake apparent from the record in the impugned order, warranting recall of the order to the limited extent of adjudicating Ground No.7 of the original grounds and Ground No.17 of the additional grounds. 5. As regards the reliance placed by the Ld. DR on the decision in the case of S.E. Investments Ltd. (Supra), we find that the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the allegation was about the brevity of the order. In the present case, the grievance is not regarding shortness of the order but non-adjudication of two specific legal grounds which were duly raised. Non-consideration of a ground is a recognized error apparent from the record and not a deficiency in elaboration of the order. Therefore, the said decision does not assist the Revenue. 6. In view of the above discussion, we hold that non- adjudication of Ground No.7 of the original grounds and Ground No.17 of the additional grounds constitutes a mistake apparent Printed from counselvise.com MA No 85 of 2025 Sesham Ramanaiah Page 5 of 5 from the record. Accordingly, the MA filed by the assessee is allowed and the order of the Tribunal dated 08.10.2025 is recalled to the limited extent of adjudicating the aforesaid legal grounds. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing in due course. 7. In the result, the M.A of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th December 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE PRESIDENT (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 10th December 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Sesham Ramanaiah, 5-1360 Kurichedu Road, Kothamissin Bazar, Darsi Mandal, Ongole 523247 2 Income Tax Officer Ward -1 ONGOLE 3 Pr. CIT - KADAPA 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "