THE NAGAUR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. ,NAGAUR V. ITO, WAD-1, NAGAUR

MA 2/JODH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves The Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank, which filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, dismissing their appeal due to non-appearance of their counsel. The Bank argued that their counsel had filed an adjournment request citing the need to submit a necessary paperbook, which was not considered. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Telecom Ltd., emphasized that their jurisdiction under Section 254(2) is confined to rectifying apparent mistakes and does not allow for a review of the decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46027 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (IT-4), Mumbai, Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"1903 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No. 2/Jodh/2024 (A/o ITA No. 65/Jodh/2022 (Assessment Year 2018-19) The Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Vs ITO, Ward-1, Ltd., 1, NCCB Bank, Gandhi Chowk, Nagaur. Nagaur — 341001. PAN No. AAAAT7574R Assessee by Shri Amit Kothari, C.A. Revenue by Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R.) Date of Hearing 18.02.2025. Date of Pronouncement .2025. ORDER DR. MITHALA MEENA. A.M.: The Miscellaneous Application by the assessee is directed against the Tribunal order dated 12/09/2023 passed in ITA No. ITA No. 65/Jodh/2022 in respect of Assessment Year: 2018-19. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned council Shri Amit Kothari C.A. for assessee submitted that the Tribunal has decided the appeal on the ground that none was present for the assessee on the date of hearing of appeal and the appeal was dismissed without any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. He further submitted that an adjournment application was filed with a request MA No. 2/odh/2024 (A/o ITA No. 65/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year 2018-19 stating that necessary paperbook was to be submitted before the Tribunal. But due to dismissal of the appeal, he was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause to make its presentation before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the order dated 12/09/2023 passed in ITA No. 65/Jodh/2022 may kindly be recalled. 3. The Ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal has passed it detailed end comprehensive order. There is no apparent mistake in Tribunal order in view of the apex court Judgement delivered in the case of Reliance Telecom. 4. Heard both the sides, perusal of record and Tribunal order. We find that The Tribunal has considered the associates adjournment letter dated 12/09/2023 filed in the registry seeking adjournment on the ground that the learned council was preoccupied without mentioning any specific reasons steer in. Therefore, the tribunal found the ground of ground for seeking adjournment unsatisfactory end the said application for adjournment was declined. Further the Tribunal has decided appeal on merits of the case as covered issue against the assessee by the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered on the matter of delay in deposit of Employees contribution to Provident fund in the case of “Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 Taxman.com 178 Supreme Court. MA No. 2/odh/2024 (A/o ITA No. 65//odh/2022 Assessment Year 2018-19 5. Thus, there was no error or apparent mistake in the Tribunal order. the Ld. AR contention raised in the MA would amount to review of the Tribunal decision which is not permitted under the provisions of miscellaneous application u/s 254(2). The Id. DR for the Departement referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (IT-4), Mumbai [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) and requested that the MA of the assessee would be liable to be dismissed 6. From the record, it is evident that the ITAT has passed the order 12/09/2023 passed in ITA No. ITA No. 65/Jodh/2022 in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19 in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act on merits of the case within the scope and ambit of the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal conferred under Section 254 (2) of the Act. Meaning thereby that merely because the assessee might have in detail argued on 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 under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Law is settled by Hon’ble APEX COURT in the case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. (Supra) that the powers of ITAT under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Order pronounced ON. jG) OB, hoses /2025 under Rule 34(4) of y i Dated “hged 43./2025 MA No. 2/Modh/2024 (A/o ITA No. 65/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year 2018-19 7. In the above view, we find no merit in the ground of the Assessee’s Miscellaneous Application. Therefore, none of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. 8. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is rejected. Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. f U - (UDAYAN DAS aura) JUDICIAL MEMBER Copies to: (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File (DR. A LAL MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBE By Oder Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur Wy, Sd Sa "