THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MALAPPURAM V. ITO, CIRCLE-1, TIRUR, TIRUR

MA 33/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves The Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., which filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The application was based on the claim that revised grounds of appeal were not considered in the original decision. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1, upheld the original decision, stating that the Tribunal's powers under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act are limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and do not extend to re-hearing the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470379 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: CHECKMATE SERVICES PVT LTD VS CIT-1, Reliance Telecom Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AHMED IQBAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"MP No.33/Coch/2023 The Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malappuram IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP No.33/Coch/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.577/Coch/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Malappuram District Co operative Bank Ltd Head Office The Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Malappuram Uphill Malappuram Kerala 676 505 PAN No.AAAAT3207B Vs. DCIT CPC Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ahmed Iqbal, Adv. Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This miscellaneous application by the assessee filed on 14.09.2023 u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2023 in ITA No. 577/Coch/2022 for the AY 2018-19. 2. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT while passing the order dated 30.03.2023 in ITA No. 577/Coch/2022 for the AY 2018-19 had not considered the revised grounds of appeal filed on 10.01.2023 via email and hard copy filed on 11.01.2023 at Kochi. Further, AR of the assessee MP No.33/Coch/2023 The Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malappuram Page 2 of 4 submitted that the total income declared by the assessee was enhanced by of Rs. 59,24,494/- due to the error in typing the date in audit report. 3. Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently objected the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee by contending that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to revisit its earlier order and go into the details on merit of the case already decided and submitted that through this miscellaneous application, the AR of the assessee is seeking to reverse the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2023. Further, ld. DR submitted that the tribunal had correctly followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CHECKMATE SERVICES PVT LTD VS CIT-1 in CIVIL APPEAL 2833/2016 vide its judgment dated 12 October 2022 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the entire material on record. The main contention of the AR of the assessee is that the tribunal had not considered the revised grounds of appeal filed on 10.01.2023 via email and hard copy filed on 11.01.2023 at Kochi. On going through the order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2023 we find that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant facts and passed a detailed reasoned order by relying on the judgment of Apex Court the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT-1 in Civil Appeal 2833/2016 vide its judgment dated 12 October 2022 and rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Since we found no mistake in the order dated 30.03.2023 on the face of the record which needs rectification, we are of the opinion that ITAT has no power to rehear the entire appeal on merits again in the grab of miscellaneous application. 4.1 Reliance is also placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom Limited (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) / (2022) 284 taxmann.com 517 (SC) wherein held as follows:- MP No.33/Coch/2023 The Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malappuram Page 3 of 4 \"3.1 We have considered the order dated 18-11-2016 passed by the ITAT allowing the miscellaneous application in exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 as well as the original order passed by theITAT dated 6-9-2013. 3.2 Having gone through both the orders passed by the ITAT we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18-11-2016 recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under section 254(2) of the Act.While allowing the application under section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013, it appears that the ITAT has re-heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record only. Therefore, the powers under section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.While considering the application under section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. 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 erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an MP No.33/Coch/2023 The Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malappuram Page 4 of 4 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.” 5. Thus we are of the firm opinion that section 254(2) can be invoked only with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. The assessee cannot seek a review of the order passed by the Tribunal through a miscellaneous application u/s. 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom Limited (supra). We further clarify that if the assessee is of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous either on facts or in law, in that case the only remedy available to the assessee is to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th Mar, 2025 Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 24th Mar, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Cochin "