UOH STAFF COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

MA 66/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the UOH Staff Cooperative Credit Society, which filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a Tribunal order concerning the denial of a deduction claim under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act. The Society argued that the Tribunal failed to consider a relevant High Court decision that supported their claim for a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, the Tribunal noted that this argument was being raised for the first time in the rectification application and had not been part of the original appeal or considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that introducing new grounds at this stage would effectively amount to a review of the decision, which is not permissible under Section 254(2).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786029 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Vavveru cooperative Rural Bank Ltd Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TV VAMSHIDHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K. SAI KIRAN
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member MA No. 66/Hyd/2025 (In आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.468/Hyd/2025) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2020-21) UOH Staff Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad. PAN: AAAAU9670K Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Sri K. Sai Kiran, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by: Sri TV Vamshidhar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 26/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present miscellaneous application filed by the assessee society under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) arises from the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.468/Hyd/2025, dated 06.08.2025. The assessee society claims that the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 468/Hyd/2025 (supra) suffers from a mistake apparent Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA 66/Hyd/2025 UOH Staff CooperaƟve Credit Society Limited vs. ITO from record which renders it amenable for rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act. 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee which is a cooperative credit society had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 declaring Nil income (after claiming deduction under Section 80P of the Act). Thereafter, the AO framed the assessment, vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 2.09.2022, determining the income of the assessee society at Rs. 52,38,796/- after, inter alia, disallowing its claim for deduction of interest on fixed deposits of Rs. 4,97,556/- under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 3. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to verify the claim of the assessee society for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee society assailed the CIT(A) order and carried the matter by way of an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. AR during the course of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal confined his contentions to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. On a perusal of the record, it transpires that there is no finding or observation either in the order of the AO or the Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA 66/Hyd/2025 UOH Staff CooperaƟve Credit Society Limited vs. ITO CIT(A), which would reveal that the assessee society had at any stage advanced or raised before them any claim for deduction of the subject interest on deposits under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 6. The assessee society in its present application filed under Section 254(2) of the Act has sought for rectification of the Tribunal’s order, inter alia, on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to consider the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Vavveru cooperative Rural Bank Ltd Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, WP NO. 12727 AND 12767 0F 2016 and 2518, 2571, 2576 & 2581, based on which it was entitled for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We may herein observe that the contention of the assessee society that it was entitled to claim deduction of the interest on deposits of Rs. 4,97,556/- (supra) under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is being raised for the first time in the present application filed before us under Section 254(2) of the Act. 7. Before proceeding further, we may herein observe that Section 254(2) permit rectification only where there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The mistake must be apparent, glaring, patent and capable of correction on the admitted record without recourse to fresh evidence, extended argument or rehearing of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA 66/Hyd/2025 UOH Staff CooperaƟve Credit Society Limited vs. ITO 8. Admittedly, it is settled law that where the Tribunal fails to consider a binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or that of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court that was squarely relevant to the controversy, then such non-consideration will tantamount to a mistake apparent on the face of the record, rendering the order passed by the Tribunal amenable for rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act. The aforesaid position of law can safely be gathered from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), which recognises that non-consideration of a binding precedent will be a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the Act. 9. However, we are of the view that an applicant in the guise of an application under Section 254(2) of the Act cannot be permitted to come up for the first time with fresh grounds or raise a substantially new contention that was neither there before the lower authorities nor pressed before the Tribunal at the stage of hearing of the appeal. As is so in the present case before us, in a case where the point on which the precedent would operate was neither a part of the proceedings before the AO or CIT(A) nor raised before the Tribunal in the course of hearing of the appeal, the petitioner cannot, by way of a miscellaneous application filed under Section 254(2) of the Act be permitted to import that precedent to Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA 66/Hyd/2025 UOH Staff CooperaƟve Credit Society Limited vs. ITO seek a recall of the Tribunal’s order, as doing so would amount to effectively re-opening and rehearing the appeal on an issue which was neither there before the authorities below nor was urged in the course of hearing of the appeal, as the same falls beyond the narrow scope and gamut of the jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Act. 10. We shall now deal with the facts involved in the present case in the backdrop of the scope of the application filed by the assessee society under Section 254 (2) of the Act. 11. As observed by us hereinabove, both the AO’s order and the CIT(A)’s order, as well as the grounds/oral submissions raised by the Ld. AR in the course of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal were all confined to the entitlement of the assessee society for claiming deduction of the interest from investments with cooperative societies/banks under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. There is nothing discernible from the record which would reveal that the assessee society had, either before the AO or the CIT(A), or at the stage of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal raised any claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Rather, we find that the assessee applicant in the present rectification application has sought to raise for the first time a substantive contention Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA 66/Hyd/2025 UOH Staff CooperaƟve Credit Society Limited vs. ITO regarding its entitlement for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, and in support thereof has pressed into service the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Vavveru cooperative Rural Bank Ltd Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, WP NO. 12727 and 12767 of 2016 and 2518, 2571, 2576 & 2581. 12. Although, it is the settled position of law that non-consideration of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court or that of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court would undeniably be a ground for rectification, but we are afraid that the facts involved in the present case are distinguishable. We may herein reiterate that as no contention regarding claim for deduction of the interest on deposits under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act can either be traced in the orders of the AO or CIT(A); nor was the same argued before the Tribunal at the stage of hearing of the appeal, therefore, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) will not assist the case of the assessee applicant before us. We, say so, for the reason that an applicant in the guise of an application under Section 254(2) of the Act, cannot be permitted to come up for the first time with fresh grounds or raise a substantially new contention that is neither discernible from the orders of the lower authorities nor raised before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA 66/Hyd/2025 UOH Staff CooperaƟve Credit Society Limited vs. ITO 13. As the issue whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) involves separate legal and factual ingredients, which cannot be properly resolved by filing the present rectification application, as the same would otherwise require rehearing the appeal and deprive the Revenue of an opportunity to meet the new contention, that is impermissible considering the limited scope and gamut of Section 254(2) of the Act, therefore, the present application filed by the assessee applicant fails on the said ground. 14. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are of a firm conviction that though it is the settled position of law that the non- consideration of a binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or that of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court would constitute a mistake apparent on the record rendering the order passed by the Tribunal amenable for rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act, but in the backdrop of the admitted facts of this case the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) will not assist the case of the assessee applicant before us, because the substantive contention now urged under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was neither discernible from the orders of the authorities below; nor was argued before the Tribunal in the course of the hearing of the appeal. In case the application filed by the assessee society is Printed from counselvise.com 8 MA 66/Hyd/2025 UOH Staff CooperaƟve Credit Society Limited vs. ITO allowed, then it would result to permitting it to raise a new ground in the guise of the application filed before us under Section 254(2) of the Act and, thus, rehearing of the matter which we are afraid is impermissible as per the mandate of law. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it is held that in exercise of powers under section 254(2), the Tribunal cannot re-visit its earlier decision and review the same. What can be rectified is a mistake apparent from the record, and not something which requires re-appreciation of evidence or re-argument on merits. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further clarified that an attempt to re-argue the case or change the conclusion reached earlier amounts to review, which falls beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Act. 15. Resultantly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee society under Section 254(2) of the Act is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th October, 2025. Sd/- (MANJUNATHA G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 29th October, 2025 Printed from counselvise.com 9 MA 66/Hyd/2025 UOH Staff CooperaƟve Credit Society Limited vs. ITO OKK / SPS Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 UOH Staff Cooperative Credit Society, University of Hyderabad, Admin Block back side, above SBI, Prof C R Rao Road, Gachibowli-500046, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), 11th, Venkat Enclave, Whitefields, Hitech City, Kondapur, Telangana-500084. 3 The Pr.CIT, Hyderabad 4 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad. Printed from counselvise.com "