SHASHIKALA VINAYKUMAR,MANGALURU V. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1) AND TPS MANGALORE, MANGALURU

MA 42/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shashikala Vinaykumar, the appellant, who filed miscellaneous applications seeking the recall of an ITAT order that dismissed her appeals for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15. The dismissal was based on her failure to furnish evidence in prescribed forms under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have decided the issues on merits instead of dismissing the appeals, as she did not settle the dispute under the scheme. The Tribunal agreed that the dismissal was an error and recalled the order, setting the appeals for a new hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774923 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, Section 254(2) of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAROOP MANNAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: VANAJA

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA Nos. 41 & 42/Bang/2025 [In ITA Nos. 7-8/Bang/2025] Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 Shashikala Vinaykumar, 503, Sheshkamal Matadakani Cross Road, Gandhinagar, Mangalore. PAN – AAIPV 2319 P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Mangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vanaja MR, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Swaroop Mannava, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 08.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : .09.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee, by way of these miscellaneous applications, is seeking recall of the order passed by the ITAT dated 30-04-2025. The request is made on the ground that there is a mistake apparent on record which needs to be rectified within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. 2. The assessee in the miscellaneous applications submitted that the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee on the ground that Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41&42/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 . the assessee failed to furnish evidence in the prescribed Form 4 & 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. 3. However, the assessee submitted that if the assessee failed to settle the dispute under the scheme, then the Tribunal should have decided the issues on merits instead of dismissing the appeals. The learned AR submitted that this is an inadvertent mistake committed by the Tribunal. Dismissing the appeals instead of deciding them on merits amounts to a mistake apparent from record. Therefore, the same should be rectified within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act by recalling the order dated 30-04-2025. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR could not controvert the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue before us is whether there is a mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal dated 30-04-2025 in the given facts and circumstances. 5.1 On careful consideration, we find that in the original order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish evidence in the prescribed Form 4 and 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The dismissal was based on the assumption that the assessee had opted for settlement under the scheme but failed to comply with the requirements. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41&42/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 . 5.2 However, on examining the facts, we note that the assessee had not successfully settled the dispute under the scheme. In such a situation, the Tribunal was required to adjudicate the appeals on merits of the case. The scheme itself does not provide that the failure of the assessee to settle the dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas would automatically result in dismissal of the appeals. Rather, in such cases, the normal appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal continues, and the appeals should be decided on merits in accordance with law. 5.3 Thus, in the present case, by dismissing the appeals outright instead of adjudicating them on merits, the Tribunal has committed an error. This error is not a debatable legal issue but is clear and self- evident from the record. It is a case where the order of the Tribunal is inconsistent with the procedure required by law. Such an error falls within the scope of a “mistake apparent from record” as envisaged under section 254(2) of the Act. 5.4 Accordingly, we hold that the order dated 30-04-2025 suffers from a mistake apparent from record, which needs rectification in exercise of the powers under section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, we recall the order dated 30-04-2025. 5.5 The appeals are now fixed for hearing on 18-09-2025. Since the date has already been announced in open court, no separate notice of hearing will be issued to the parties. Hence, the ground raised in both the MA’s filed by the assessee are hereby allowed. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41&42/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 . 6. In the result, both the MA’s filed by the assessee are hereby allowed. Order pronounced in court on 4th day of September, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 4th September, 2025 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "