SHIVABASAPPA KARIYAPPANAVAR,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

MA 4/BANG/2025

AI Insights

Mr. Shivabasappa Kariyappanavar filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall an order from a previous ITAT decision, claiming that ground no.3 was not addressed. The appellant argued that the omission constituted a mistake apparent on the record, warranting a review. The respondent, ITO Ward-5(3)(2), opposed the application, arguing that the concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution does not apply in a negative manner to enforce claims of irregularities. The ITAT found that the ground was indeed omitted and acknowledged the mistake, thus allowing the recall of the order to address the unadjudicated ground.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112397 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R GALE; STANDING COUNSEL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV NULVI; WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"MP No.4/Bang/2025 Mr. Shivabasappa Kariyappanavar, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP No.4/Bang/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.1537/Bang/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Shivabasappa Kariyappanavar No.T-01, Evergreen Apartment 2nd Main, 4th J Cross, B. Channasandra Kasturi Nagar Bangalore 560 043 PAN NO : AJLPK8598B Vs. ITO Ward-5(3)(2) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Rajiv Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for department Date of Hearing : 11.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.04.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee by way of this miscellaneous application filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) is seeking to recall the order passed by this ITAT in ITA No.1537/Bang/2024 vide order dated 13.12.2024 on the reasoning that the ground no.3 as raised by the assessee was not decided. 2. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there was no speaking order passed with regard to ground no.3 as raised or the evidences submitted in support of ground no.3 which is a mistake apparent on the record and hence requested to review the MP No.4/Bang/2025 Mr. Shivabasappa Kariyappanavar, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 order in ITA No.1537/Bang/2024 dated 13.12.2024 and pass a fresh order in this regard. 3. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. strongly objected the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee by contending that there is no mistake apparent on the face of record as the concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Further, the ld. D.R. submitted that when the AO has committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual, other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The provisions of section 254(2) of the Act empower the ITAT to rectify any type of mistake in its order provided it should be apparent from the face of the record. The apparent mistakes can be in the form of calculation, data, wrong assumption of facts, misinterpretation of the provisions of law, misreporting of income, deduction, or any other relevant information or omission to consider any grounds of appeal. However, the mistake which require arguments, debate, evaluation of law/facts in its determination, the same cannot be referred as mistake apparent from the record. Further the error of judgment cannot be described as a mistake apparent from the record. In such a situation, the aggrieved party should approach the higher forum for the redressal of the issue involved in the dispute. 4.1 Coming to the facts of the case on hand, admittedly, there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record as the order passed by this ITAT in ITA No. 1537/Bang/2024 vide order dated 13.12.2024 did not deal with the ground no.3 as raised by the assessee and MP No.4/Bang/2025 Mr. Shivabasappa Kariyappanavar, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 therefore in our considered view, the ITAT had inadvertently not adjudicated the ground no.3 as raised by the assessee and therefore, this is a mistake apparent from the face of the record and accordingly we exercise our power granted u/s 254(2) of the Act and recall the order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 1537/Bang/2024 vide order dated 13.12.2024 to the extent of deciding the ground no.3 as raised by the assessee. The registry is directed to post this appeal for hearing. Notices may be served to both the parties intimating the date of hearing. Accordingly, the MA filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th Apr, 2025 Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 15th Apr, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "