SUNIL AMBADAS KADAM,AURANGABAD V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CPC), BENGALURU

MA 47/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, Shri Sunil Ambadas Kadam, under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, arising from an earlier order of the Tribunal. The assessee contended that there were apparent mistakes in the order concerning the grounds of appeal, specifically regarding the treatment of the employer's and employee's contributions to PF and ESI, which were not adjudicated in the original order. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and the need to address the unadjudicated issues, leading to the decision to recall the earlier order and schedule a new hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775784 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: ITA 141/PUN/2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRADDHA NICHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH N THETE

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \" बी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील स / M.A. No. 47/PUN/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 141/PUN/2021) धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shri Sunil Ambadas Kadam, RX-3/10, Krushnamai Housing Society, Bajaj Nagar, MIDC, Aurangabad-431136 Maharashtra PAN-AIIPK5148B Vs DCIT (CPC), Bengaluru Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ramesh N Thete (through virtual) Revenue by : Smt. Shraddha Nichal, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 01.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This Miscellaneous application at the instance of assessee filed u/s 254(2) of the Act is arising out of the order of this Tribunal ITA-141/PUN/2021, dated 30.08.2022. 2. Through this miscellaneous application assessee has contended that there are certain apparent mistakes in the order relating to the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee which remain to be adjudicated. He submitted that employer’s Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A. No. 47/PUN/2024 contribution is treated as employer’s contribution and the ground No. 4 has not been decided in the impugned order. 3. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the impugned order. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We notice that impugned order has been passed commonly for various assessee(s) and only the facts of the assessee namely Sunil Ambadas Kadam i.e. the assessee has been referred and in the facts mentioned in the Para 4 of the impugned order it is stated that CPC Bengaluru has made disallowance of Rs. 37,18,940/- in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 17.05.2019 on the ground that the appellant has not deposited the employees share of PF and ESI within the due date prescribed under the respective statutes. In the impugned order this Tribunal further goes on to decide the issue based on the disallowance of Rs. 37,18,940/- treating it as the employees contribution and allows the appeal of the assessee. Further this Tribunal applies with the decision taken in ITA 141/PUN/2021 on the remaining appeals. 5. We also notice that this Tribunal did not deal with the ground raised by the assessee challenging the power of the alleged judgement made by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act. We also observe that in the impugned order wrong figure of disallowance has been mentioned because the same consists of separate items namely employer’s contribution at Rs. 22,60,257/- and employees contribution at Rs. 14,58,683/- This clearly shows that there are apparent mistakes in the impugned order and also certain issues, remained to be adjudicated. Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A. No. 47/PUN/2024 6. We are therefore of the considered view that the impugned order vide ITA No. 141/Pun/2021 dated 30.08.2022 deserves to be re-called. We accordingly direct the registry to re-instate ITA No. 141/PUN/2021 at its original number and fix it for hearing in due course and the date of hearing is to be communicated to both the parties. 7. In the result miscellaneous application filed by assessee is allowed as per terms indicated herein above. Order pronounced on this 09th day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििाांक / Dated: 09th September, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"बी\" बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "