The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) of the assessee challenging revisionary order stating Tribunal has no power to recall/review its own orders.
Samriddhi Petroproducts Private Limited (the assessee) had a tax assessment order passed by the Assessing officer on 12/09/2016. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) found that the assessing officer had not made sufficient inquiries regarding certain financial matters. Consequently, the PCIT passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act on 28/02/2019, challenging the original assessment.
Aggrieved by the PCIT order, the assessee challenged the order before in ITA No. 211/Hyd/2023 where the assessee argued that the assumptions made by the PCIT were incorrect and based on wrong facts. The assessee’s main contentions were disputes over the estimation of turnover and violations related to cash transactions under Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act,1961. However, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure), Click here
The assessee again appealed before the Hyderabad Bench of ITAT against the PCIT order. In the present case, the assessee’s counsel argued that the Tribunal in the previous appeal did not consider the issues raised in Form No.36 but decided the issue of whether the original order passed by the Assessing Officer was filed in law or not.
On the contrary, the revenue counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (It)4 vs M/S. Reliance Telecom Ltd. on 3 December 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 7110 of 2021. The revenue argued that the present M.A. was not maintainable.
The two-member bench comprising Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member) observed that the issue, in this case, had already been decided in ITA No. 211/Hyd/2023 where the Tribunal held that the scope of rectifying orders under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not allow it to recall or review its own orders.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure), Click here
The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court Ruling in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts, where it was held that the Tribunal’s power under Section 254(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record, not revisiting the merits of the case.
In the present case, the tribunal referred to the previous order in ITA No. 211/Hyd/2023 and found no reason to interfere with the Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) filed by the assessee, as it would involve re-deciding the case on its merits, which falls outside the scope of Section 254(2). Therefore, the assessee’s Miscellaneous Application was dismissed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
