VARANGA VYAVASAYIKA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD.,UDUPI V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

MA 60/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Varanga Sahakari Vyavasayika Sangha Ltd., the appellant, who filed a miscellaneous application seeking to recall an ITAT order that inadvertently addressed a deduction issue under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was not part of the original appeal. The respondent was the ITO Ward-1 & TPS Udupi. The ITAT acknowledged the oversight and the need for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act, leading to the recall of the previous order and setting a date for re-evaluation of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470382 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R GALE; STANDING COUNSEL
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH R UPPIN; WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"MA No.60/Bang/2024 M/s. Varanga Sahakari, Udupi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.60/Bang/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.457/Bang/2024) Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Varanga Sahakari Vyavasayika Sangha Ltd. Varanga, Karkala Taluk Udupi District 576 144 PAN NO :AABAV1321R Vs. ITO Ward-1 & TPS Udupi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Mahesh R Uppin, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department Date of Hearing : 20.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee by way of this miscellaneous application is seeking to recall the order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.457/Bang/2024 dated 27.5.2024 on the reasoning that there is a mistake apparent in the order of the ITAT. 2. The assessee in the miscellaneous application submitted that there was no ground raised by the assessee relating to the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). However, the ITAT in its order dated 27.5.2024 has inadvertently dealt with the issue relating to the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and further directed for fresh adjudication, after giving the benefit of necessary relief to be granted under the provisions of section 57 of the Act. Since there was no ground relating to the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and therefore, the finding given by the MA No.60/Bang/2024 M/s. Varanga Sahakari, Udupi Page 2 of 4 ITAT thereon is an apparent mistake, which needs to be rectified under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. 3. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. contended that the assessee itself has made written submission before the ITAT relating to the issue u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and therefore, the ITAT has given a finding thereon. However, the ld. D.R. fairly agreed that there was no issue in the ground of appeal relating to the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. D.R. left the issue at the discretion of the bench. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The provisions of section 254(2) of the Act empowers the ITAT to rectify any type of mistake in its order provided it should be apparent from the record. The mistake apparent from the record has been the subject of continuous litigation. The Hon'ble Courts time and again has defined the apparent mistakes through judicial pronouncements. As such, the apparent mistake refers to those errors or inconsistency that is evident from the face of the documents/order of the authority in respect of which two views are not possible. The apparent mistake can be in the form of calculation, data, wrong assumption of facts, misinterpretation of the provisions of law, misreporting of income, deduction, or any other relevant information. However, the mistakes which require arguments, debate, evaluation of law/facts in its determination, the same cannot be referred as mistake apparent from the record. Likewise, in the event of any order given by the ITAT which is alleged to be based on the ground assumption of facts or law, but after due application of mind, then the same cannot be said a mistake apparent from the record. It is because the view has been formed by the ITAT after considering the necessary facts and the law on the point of dispute, then the same cannot be reviewed again in the garb of apparent mistake. In other words, the error of judgement cannot be described MA No.60/Bang/2024 M/s. Varanga Sahakari, Udupi Page 3 of 4 as a mistake apparent from record. In such a situation, the aggrieved party should approach the higher forum for the redressal of the issue involved in the dispute. 4.1 Coming to the facts of the case on hand, admittedly, there was no ground raised by the assessee relating to the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act and therefore, in our considered view, the ITAT inadvertently has recorded the finding relating to the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act which amounts to a mistake apparent from the record. Accordingly, we exercise our power granted u/s 254(2) of the Act and recall the order passed by the ITAT dated 27.5.2024 for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Accordingly, the registry is directed to restore the appeal of the assessee at its original number and fix the same for fresh hearing dated 23.1.2025. Since the date of hearing has been intimated to both the parties during the course of hearing, there is no reason to issue separate notice to either of the party intimating the date of hearing. Hence, the MA filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th Dec, 2024 Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 20th Dec, 2024. VG/SPS MA No.60/Bang/2024 M/s. Varanga Sahakari, Udupi Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "