SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

MA 207/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against the Income Tax Officer-25(1)(3), the respondent, seeking recall of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider a decision from a Coordinate Bench during the hearing, which they believed was crucial and constituted a mistake apparent from the record. However, the Tribunal clarified that the decision cited by the appellant was indeed considered in their previous ruling, and the Tribunal had relied on a binding precedent from the jurisdictional High Court for their decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 397920 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 1306/MUM/2023, ITA No. 2251/Mum/2022, Pr. CIT v. Swati [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HIMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRIYANKA JAIN VIRTUALLY PRESENT

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA No. 207/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 1306/MUM/2023) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi, 1A, 101, Sangeeta Apts, Panch Marg, Off Yari Road, Versova Andheri West, Mumbai-400058. Vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(3), 4th floor, Building C-10, Room No. 404, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AAJPW 0272 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Priyanka Jain (Virtually Present) & Mr. Pankaj Soni Revenue by : Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/05/2025 Date of pronouncement : 03/06/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 26.02.2024 passed in ITA No. 1306/Mum/2023 for assessment year 2013-14. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee has drawn our attention to the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and contended that the factual matrix of the present case is identical to that in the case of Mrs. Pallavi Mayur Gandhi in ITA No. 2251/Mum/2022, which was specifically cited during the course of the hearing. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the said decision while rendering the impugned order, and such non consideration, according to the assessee, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, warranting rectification. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. Upon examination, we find that the Tribunal has duly recorded the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Mrs. Pallavi Mayur Gandhi impugned order. However, while adjudicating the assessee’s claim for exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the sale of shares, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Bajaj [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta), and accordingly affirmed the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3.1 In our considered view, once the Tribunal has followed the binding precedent of a jurisdictional High Court or a de higher appellate forum, the grievance of the assessee regarding the alleged non-adherence to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal does not amount to a mistake apparent from the record, within the meaning and scope of Section 254(2 Accordingly, the contention raised by the assessee is found to be without merit. Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi. 2251/Mum/2022, which was specifically cited during the course of he hearing. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the said decision while rendering the impugned order, and such non consideration, according to the assessee, constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, warranting rectification. ve carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. Upon examination, we find that the Tribunal has duly recorded the decision of the Coordinate Mrs. Pallavi Mayur Gandhi (supra) in paragraph 6 of the order. However, while adjudicating the assessee’s claim for exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the sale of shares, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Pr. CIT v. Swati [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta), and accordingly affirmed the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax In our considered view, once the Tribunal has followed the binding precedent of a jurisdictional High Court or a de higher appellate forum, the grievance of the assessee regarding the adherence to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal does not amount to a mistake apparent from the record, within the meaning and scope of Section 254(2 Accordingly, the contention raised by the assessee is found to be Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi. 2 MA No. 207/Mum/2024 2251/Mum/2022, which was specifically cited during the course of he hearing. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the said decision while rendering the impugned order, and such non- consideration, according to the assessee, constitutes a mistake ve carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. Upon examination, we find that the Tribunal has duly recorded the decision of the Coordinate (supra) in paragraph 6 of the order. However, while adjudicating the assessee’s claim for exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the sale of shares, the Tribunal placed reliance on the Pr. CIT v. Swati [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta), and accordingly affirmed the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax In our considered view, once the Tribunal has followed the binding precedent of a jurisdictional High Court or a decision of a higher appellate forum, the grievance of the assessee regarding the adherence to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal does not amount to a mistake apparent from the record, within the meaning and scope of Section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the contention raised by the assessee is found to be 4. The Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 03/06/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi. The Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is accordingly nounced in the open Court on 03/06/2025. Sd/ SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi. 3 MA No. 207/Mum/2024 The Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is accordingly /06/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "