KRISHNA KNITWEAR TECHNOLOGY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -5 (3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 144/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 November 2020AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the earlier order for AY 2010-11, dealing with an identical issue, was inadvertently overlooked. This constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record, warranting recall of the appeal order.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought recall of an ITAT order, arguing that an identical issue decided in their favor for AY 2010-11 was overlooked. The assessee had provided a copy of the earlier order during the appeal hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an ITAT order can be recalled due to overlooking a prior decision on an identical issue in the assessee's own case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Shri Vimal Punmiya

By filing the present application, purportedly under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the assessee seeks recall/rectification of order dated 14th February 2020, passed in Mum./2019.

2.

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. It is the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that in 2 Shri Bharat Chandrakant Jasani course of hearing of appeal, it was submitted that identical issue has been decided in assessee’s favour in its own case by the Tribunal in assessment year 2010–11 and a copy of the said order also furnished before the Tribunal. He further submitted that while deciding the present appeal the earlier order of the Tribunal has not at all been considered. Therefore, the appeal order suffers from mistake apparent on the face of record.

3.

The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the appeal having been decided on merits after considering the relevant facts and material as well as submissions made by the parties, there is no mistake apparent on the face of record.

4.

Having considered rival submissions in the context of facts and material on record, it is noticed that in the course of hearing of appeal, the assessee has furnished a written submission, wherein, it was stated that while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010–11, the Tribunal has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer fully. In fact, a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA no.4716/Mum./2018, dated 30th August 2019, was also placed on record. However, while deciding the appeal, as it appears, the order passed by the Tribunal under similar facts and circumstances for the assessment year 2010–11 was inadvertently

3 Shri Bharat Chandrakant Jasani overlooked. This being a mistake apparent on the face of record, we are inclined to recall the appeal order for de novo adjudication of the issue. Accordingly, the appeal order dated 14th February 2020, is hereby recalled and the appeal is restored to its original position for hearing before the regular bench in due course.

5.

In the result, misc. application is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.11.2020

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →