SHREEMANGAL ROLLING MILLS PVT LTD,RAIGARH V. ACIT-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

MA 16/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shreemangal Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., which filed a miscellaneous application against an earlier Tribunal order dismissing their appeal related to the assessment year 2013-14. The Tribunal's earlier decision confirmed an ex-parte order from the CIT(A), which had dismissed the case due to non-compliance by the assessee. The assessee argued that there should be a deduction for the cost of acquisition from the sale consideration, which was not addressed in the earlier orders. The Tribunal, however, found that the application was essentially seeking a review of the decision, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35668 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 16/RPR/2024 [Arising out of ITA No.268/RPR/2023] Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shreemangal Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Kailash Chandra Agrawal Station Road, Kharsia, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 661 PAN: AAJCS0895F ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ….…Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Vimal Kumar Agrawal, CAs Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 07.02.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2025 2 MA No.16/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present miscellaneous application filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 268/RPR/2023, dated 01.11.2023. 2. Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee company by preferring the present application submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal ITA No. 268/RPR/2023, dated 01.11.2023 suffers from mistake apparent from record which, thus, had rendered the same amenable for rectification u/s.254(2) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the contents of the captioned application dated 03.05.2024 are culled out as under: “1.1. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble Bench has passed order dt.1-11-23 in ITA No 268/ RPR/2023, A.Y.13- 14 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee; assessment order passed u/s.147 rws.144 dt.7-12-18; due to non- appearance/non-compliance before the CIT(A), the CIT(A). NFAC has dismissed the case vide order passed u/s250 dt.2-6-23; the ld CIT(A), due to non-compliance by the assessee, without going into merits of the case that whole amount of sale consideration of Rs.66,31,100 could not be income of the assessee, there should be some cost of acquisition would be eligible to be deducted there-from, passed order ex-parte on 2-6-23; 1.2. the Hon'ble Bench has confirmed the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) without going into merits, of the case that whole amount of sale consideration of Rs.66,31,100 could not be income of the assessee. there should be some 'cost of acquisition' would be eligible to be deducted there-from; in the interest of principle of natural justice & that only 3 MA No.16/RPR/2024 'legitimate income' be assessed in the hands of the assessee after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, it is requested to recall the matter & obliged.” 3. Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short “DR’), submitted that as the assessee company by filing the present application on the aforesaid issue has sought a review, which is not permissible as per the mandate of law, therefore, the present application filed by the assessee company cannot be accepted, and is liable to be rejected. 4. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties regarding the application filed by the assessee company u/s. 254(2) of the Act. We are of the view that the assessee applicant in the garb of the aforesaid miscellaneous application is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.268/RPR/2023, dated 01.11.2023, which is beyond the scope of the latter’s powers as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: \" ....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in 4 MA No.16/RPR/2024 accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record........\" Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it was held as under: \"From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was 5 MA No.16/RPR/2024 erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case.\" (emphasis supplied by us) 5. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, are of the view that as the assessee company in the garb of the present application filed u/s. 254(2) of the Act had, in fact, sought for a review of the order so passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal, which as observed by us hereinabove does not fall within the realm of the powers vested with it u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee u/s.254(2) of the Act is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 6. Resultantly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee company being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 10th day of February, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 10th February, 2025 ***SB, Sr. PS 6 MA No.16/RPR/2024 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Bilaspur (C.G) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "