Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 313157 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
09-05-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2020-2021
Judgement Text
"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यावयक सदस्य एवं श्री अविताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./MA No.18/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2020-21 (ITA-1951 & 1952/Chny/2024) Veerakeralam PACB, No.17, Periya Thottam Colony, Veerakeralam, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641007 [PAN: AAAAV3131G] The Income Tax Officer , Non-Corp Ward-4(1), CBE, Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri S.Ramachandran, CA(virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri N.Madan Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This MA has been filed by the assessee requesting for recalling of the order in ITA nos. 1951/Chny/2024 for AY-2018-19 and 1952/Chny/2024 for AY-2020-21 dated 10.01.2025. 2.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that its ground of appeal no.5 has not been adjudicated and that the same may be adjudicated now. MA No.18 /Chny/2024 Page - 2 - of 8 3.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the impugned MA has been moved for non-adjudication of a ground. Relevant part of the MA application where assessee has contested non-adjudication of its ground is reproduced hereunder:- “….c. Before the H’ble ITAT, this aspect was contended as Ground No.5 (for AY 2020-21 only) in the Grounds of Appeal as under: “Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, failed to consider proportionate administrative expenses to arrive at the Net Profit from PDS activity, when the same has been specifically considered by a speaking order by the Ld.AO for AY 2018-19, and adopted by him in his Order u/s 250 for that year… d The H’ble ITAT did not adjudicate the said ground no.5 e Hence, the applicant is before H’ble Bench with a humble prayer for adjudication for ground no.5 as mentioned above…” 4.0 In this regard, we deem it necessary to reproduce the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee along with memo in Form 36 while filing ITA No.1952 / Chny/ 2024 dated 20.07.2024:- MA No.18 /Chny/2024 Page - 3 - of 8 MA No.18 /Chny/2024 Page - 4 - of 8 MA No.18 /Chny/2024 Page - 5 - of 8 MA No.18 /Chny/2024 Page - 6 - of 8 MA No.18 /Chny/2024 Page - 7 - of 8 MA No.18 /Chny/2024 Page - 8 - of 8 5.0 A perusal of the above shows that no such ground of appeal as raised by the appellant in its MA under consideration was raised before us which had escaped adjudication. Accordingly, as no mistake amenable to any rectification has been pointed out by the appellant assessee, the MA No.18/Chny/2025 r.w. ITA No.1952/Chny/2024 for recalling order of this tribunal dated 10.01.2025 stands dismissed. 6.0 In the result, the MA of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 9th , May-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (यस यस धवश्वनेत्र रधव) (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member Sd/- (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 9th , May -2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT – Coimbatore. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF "
AI Insights
The case involves Veerakeralam PACB, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning two assessment years. The appellant contended that a specific ground related to the non-consideration of proportionate administrative expenses in arriving at the Net Profit from PDS activity for AY 2020-21 was not adjudicated in the original ITA orders. The Tribunal reviewed the grounds of appeal and the associated documents but concluded that the ground cited by the appellant was not part of the original appeals and thus had not escaped adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the MA, affirming that no rectifiable mistake was present in the original order.
