WARANGAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ,WARANGAL V. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

MA 80/HYD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Warangal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, which filed a miscellaneous application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 29/03/2022. The application was based on the grounds that the Tribunal had not discussed or adjudicated all the grounds raised in the original appeal and that the order passed by the Assessing Officer, which was in compliance with the Tribunal's earlier directions, should not have been subjected to revisionary proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, however, found that the application sought a review of the decision rather than rectification of any apparent mistakes, which is not permissible under the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785311 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Telecom Limited (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURPREET SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P. MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 263

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 M.A. No.80/Hyd/2022 आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.473/Hyd/2020 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Warangal Urban Co- operative Bank Ltd, Warangal. PAN: AAAAW0651J Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Warangal. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 08/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 31/10/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 473/Hyd/2020, dated 29/03/2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA 80/Hyd/2022 Warangal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ACIT Hyderabad under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 30/03/2020. 2. Ostensibly, the assessee company as per its application filed under section 254(2) of the Act states that the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing of its appeal in ITA No.473/Hyd/2020, dated 29/03/2022 suffers from certain mistakes which therein render it amenable for rectification for the reasons stated as under (culled out from the application by the assessee company): “3. In this connection, it is humbly submitted that there are certain mistakes in the said order of the Hon’ble ITAT which are submitted as under:  No opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee.  It has been submitted that appellant has raised eight grounds before Hon’ble ITAT and that all the grounds are not discussed and adjudicated or argued. It can be seen from the ITAT order that all the grounds that were raised by the appellant have not been adjudicated.  The Hon’ble ITAT has not taken cognizance of the fact that order which can be subject to the revision is only the order, which is independently passed by the assessing officer. Junior officer should follow the direction of the appellate authority. Therefore, it is submitted that an order passed in consequence to the direction of the Hon’ble ITAT cannot be subjected to the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act. Prayer: Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA 80/Hyd/2022 Warangal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ACIT In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed to recall the order of ITAT in ITA No. 473/H/2020 and hear the case.” 3. We find that the assessee applicant has filed the present application in context of two issues, viz., (i) that though the assessee company had raised eight grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, but the same had not been discussed and adjudicated; and (ii) that as the order that was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act, dated 22/12/2017 was pursuant to the direction given by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 1413/Hyd/2015, dated 22/07/2016, therefore, the consequential order passed by the AO in compliance to the direction of the Tribunal could not have been subjected to revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act. 4. We have given a thoughtful consideration and are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the Learned Authorized Representative’s contention that the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal in ITA No. 1413/Hyd/2015, dated 22/07/2016 suffers from a mistake which is patent, glaring, apparent and obvious from record rendering the same amenable Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA 80/Hyd/2022 Warangal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ACIT for rectification within the meaning of sub-section(2) of section 254 of the Act. In our view, the assessee company in the garb of the present application is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing of the subject appeal which we are afraid is beyond the limited scope of powers vested with the Tribunal under section 254 of the Act. Our view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Telecom Limited (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it is held that in exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act the Tribunal cannot revisit its earlier decision and review the same. What can be rectified is a mistake apparent from record and not something which requires reappreciation of evidence or permitting re-argument on merits. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further clarified that an attempt to reargue 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. 5. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are of a firm conviction that as there is no mistake apparent from record in the Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA 80/Hyd/2022 Warangal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ACIT order passed by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal in ITA No. 1413/Hyd/2015, dated 22/07/2016, therefore, the present miscellaneous application filed by the assessee company being devoid and bereft of any substance does not merit acceptance. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee applicant is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 31ST October, 2025. Sd/- (MANJUNATHA G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 31st October, 2025 OKK / SPS Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA 80/Hyd/2022 Warangal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ACIT Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 M/s. Warangal Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, C/o. P. Murali & Co, Cas, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 ACIT, Circle-1, Warangal. 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 "