M/S GOLDY PRECISION STAMPINGS P LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 464/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 December 2025AY 2019-203 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in its order dated 13.10.2025, allowed the assessee's Writ Petition. The Court quashed and set aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 07.03.2025 passed in MA No.194/Pun/2023. Consequently, the original order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.464/Pun/2021 dated 20th September 2022, which had allowed the assessee's appeal, was restored. The High Court clarified that this order does not preclude the Revenue from challenging the original ITAT order dated 20th September 2022 under Section 260A of the IT Act, if otherwise entitled in law. Following the High Court's order, the present appeal before the ITAT was rendered infructuous and was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Goldy Precision Stampings Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order dated 30.07.2021 of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year 2019-20. The Tribunal had initially allowed the appeal on 20.09.2022, deleting the disallowance made for delayed payment of employees' PF and ESI contributions. Subsequently, the Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, and the Tribunal recalled its earlier order on 07.03.2025. The assessee then filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court challenging the Tribunal's MA order. The High Court, vide order dated 13.10.2025, allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the Tribunal's MA order and restoring the original order dated 20.09.2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal's order recalling its earlier order allowing the assessee's appeal, passed in MA No.194/PUN/2023 invoking Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, was legal and proper. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the Tribunal's order recalling its earlier decision was improper and sought its quashing and restoration of the original order. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in its writ petition, agreed with the assessee and quashed the MA order. Revenue's contention: The Revenue filed an MA under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, seeking recall of the Tribunal's original order. The judgment does not explicitly record the Revenue's arguments before the Tribunal for recalling the order, but it implies that the Tribunal was persuaded by them to recall the order initially. However, the High Court ultimately set aside the Tribunal's MA order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG & SHRI R. K. PANDA

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain (through virtual)

For Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 04.12.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 04.12.2025 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Head 9 Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →