ZEVAR MEHAL REGD,NIT FARIDABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD2(3) FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

MA 192/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Zewar Mehal (Regd.), the applicant, who filed a miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) read with Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, seeking rectification of an order dated 28.05.2025 for the assessment year 2019-20. The application was prompted by a perceived mistake in the Tribunal's earlier order, which set aside the assessment order and the CIT(A) order, restoring the matter to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. Both the applicant's representatives and the Department of Revenue's representatives agreed that the restoration to the Ld. AO was due to a bona fide mistake and should be corrected to ensure substantial justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792457 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSARA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAKESH GUPTA; SOMIL
• Keywords: Set aside; Rectification of order

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.192/Del/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 2632/Del/2024) Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s. Zewar Mehal (Regd.), Shop Nos. 8 & 9, Complex 1 & 2 Chowk, NIT Faridabad, Haryana PAN AAAFZ2492B Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) read with Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 is for rectification of Order dated 28.05.2025 for assessment year 2019-20. 2. Learned Authorized Representative for the Applicant/assessee has submitted that after para nos. 6.1, 6.2 & para no. 6.3, mentions that assessment order dated 13.09.2021 Assessee by S/Shri Rakesh Gupta & Somil Aggarwal, Advs. Department by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansara, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.192/Del./2025 by Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) order dated 10.05.2024 are not just, fair, reasonable and legal therefore were set aside. In later portion, the matter was restored to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication due to mistake which may be corrected. 3. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department of Revenue has no objection. 4. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that findings of fact are in para nos. 6.1 and 6.2. In para no.6.3, impugned orders of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) were set aside. However, due to bona fide mistake in para 6.3, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. AO. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the direction qua the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO are deleted. Other contents in the Tribunal’s Order shall remain the same. 5. In the result, miscellaneous application of the applicant/assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th December, 2025. Sd/ Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 05 December, 2025. Mohan Lal Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.192/Del./2025 Copy forwarded to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "