WALMARK GARMENT COMPAMY PVT LTD,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

MA 302/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Walmark Garment Company Private Limited, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2014-15. The appellant contended that there was a mistake apparent in the order which could be rectified under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The main issues raised included the validity of a notice under section 148, which was claimed to be issued beyond the permissible period, and whether the income that escaped assessment was represented in the form of an asset, as required by section 149(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 2021. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the legal provisions, dismissed the application, stating that the grounds for rectification were already considered and dismissed in the original order, and that the application sought a review rather than rectification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833673 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs JKM Infra Project Limited in ITA No. 3031/Mum/2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARWAN KUMARK JHA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Rectification of order
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODIPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 302/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 6979/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year:2014-15) (Hybrid hearing) Walmark Garment Company Private Limited CH No. 9 shop No. 18, Porbandarwala Chawl Chiragnagar LBS Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai 400086 Vs. ITO Ward 14(3)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai 400020 PAN: AAACW9438P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Sharwan Kumark Jha, Advocate Virtually Appear Revenue by Shri. Pravin Salunkhe (SR. DR) Date of Hearing 23/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 04/02/2026 Order under section 250 of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This Miscellaneous Application (MA) is filed by assessee for seeking rectification in order dated 14.10.2025 passed in ITA No. 6979/Mum/2024 for AY 2014-15. 2. In the Miscellaneous Application the assessee inter alia contended that there is mistake apparent in the order dated 14.10.2025 which can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Income TaxAct. It is contended that assessee has raised Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 5 which are purely legal nature on which detailed written submission were made. Notice under section 148 is invalid as it was issued beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment is not represented, “in form of Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No. 302/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 6971/Mum/2024) (AY:2014-15) Walmark Garment Company Private Limited 2 asset” further (Section 149(1)(b) of Finance Act, 2021), therefore, such notice is barred by limitation and consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 is void-ab-initio. Further, second condition under section 149, prescribes that such escaped income should be represented in the “form of an asset”, which is not satisfied, as disallowance of expenditure cannot be construed as being represented in the form of asset. The provisions of Section 149(1)(b) is only applicable for asset prior to 01.04.2022. Expenditure has only included by Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.04.2022. It is further contended that Delhi Tribunal in ACIT vs JKM Infra Project Limited in ITA No. 3031/Mum/2025 dated 30.09.2025 held it “reopening of assessment after three years was invalid since escaped income was not represented in the form of an asset under section 149(1)(b). The reassessment notice issued beyond limitation was quashed.” By referring the contents of application under section 254 (2), the ld. AR of the assessee submit that is legal grounds have not been considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is mistake apparent on record and order dated 14.10.2025 may be recalled for adjudication of appeal afresh. The Ld. AR of the assessee has also filed written submission on similar line running into several pages. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior departmental representative (Ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue strongly opposed the plea of ld. AR of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR submit that assessee is seeking review of the order which is not permissible under the garb of application under section 254(2). The assessee can seek rectification of mistake which may be apparent on record. All the ea raised by the assessee were considered while deciding the appeal. The assessee always Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No. 302/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 6971/Mum/2024) (AY:2014-15) Walmark Garment Company Private Limited 3 remains ex-parte before Assessing Officer. Further, before Ld. CIT(A) no written submission is filed. 4. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the order dated 14.10.2025. On carful perusal of order dated 14.10.2025, we find that the legal ground being Ground No. 2 to 5 are considered in para 5 of order and after consideration thereof such legal grounds were dismissed on merit. Now the assessee seeking review of the order which is beyond the scope of application under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, we do not find any apparent mistake, which required rectification by invoking power under section 254(2). The ultimate result, based on finding cannot be changed in the application under section 254(2). Hence, application filed by the assessee is rejected. 5. In the result, application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 04.02.2026. Sd/- (ARUN KHODIPIA) Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 04/02/2026 Divya Ramesh Nandgaonkar Stenographer Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, (Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "