“miscellaneous application”

AppealsSection 254(2)Section 254(2)1,501 judgments

The decision most relied on for miscellaneous application is 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (295 ITR 466), cited in 35 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on miscellaneous application

254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT

295 ITR 466 · 2007 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A mistake apparent from the record that prejudices a party is rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Act.

CIT v. Birla Janahit Trust

208 ITR 372 · 1994 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure on salaries and miscellaneous expenses for carrying out the trust's objectives is considered an application of income for charitable purposes. Liabilities for employee benefits, such as gratuity and leave encashment, are accrued liabilities even if payable in the future.

Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services

10 SCC 136 · 2013 · Reported

citing judgments

A party can challenge the maintainability of an appeal, even if the delay in filing cross-objections is condoned due to bonafide reasons.

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India

238 CTR 353 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that the provisions for obtaining approval from the Chief Commissioner of Customs and Excise (CoD) had outlived their utility, leading to the recall of previous orders that relied on such approvals.

CIT v. State Bank of Hyderabad

382 ITR 499 · 2016 · Reported

citing judgments

A Tribunal order recalling an earlier order that was dismissed for want of condonation of delay approval is interlocutory and does not adjudicate on merits.

Judgments citing miscellaneous application

Dolphin Softech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(2), Delhi

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2611/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2611/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S Dolphin Softech Pvt. Ltd., Acit, B-155, Rear Portion, Sector-63, Vs. Circle-7(2), Noida, Uttar Pradesh. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaccd5817H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 250

deliberate nor intentional, but rather due to genuine hardship and medical exigencies. 14. That the applicant also submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 dated January 10, 2022, directed that due to lockdown imposed in COVID-19 Pandemic, the period from March

Income Tax Officer 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Meera Milind Narvekar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6016/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 250

provide evidence that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided in the circular issued by the CBDT. The revenue may prefer miscellaneous application for recalling of this order, if they so desire, in which circumstances, this order shall be recalled by the Hon’ble Tribunal. 7. Even otherwise

Avinash Mulchand Gothi (HUF), Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 552/PUN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 143(1)(a)

assessee by deleting the addition on account of delay in payment of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. Subsequently, the Revenue filed a 2 Miscellaneous Application and the Tribunal vide MA No.259/PUN/2023 order dated 05.03.2025 recalled the order. Hence, this is a recalled matter. 3. Facts of the case

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 602/DEL/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 1997-98

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 254

order dt. 18.03.2021 dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the captioned assessment year in ITA No. 602/Del/2014. Against the said order, a Miscellaneous Application was filed by the revenue wherein it is stated that grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2 taken by the revenue in ITA No. 602/Del/2014 were ... decided by the coordinate bench. Thereafter, such Miscellaneous Application of the revenue is allowed in terms of the order dt. 02.05.2025 and order of the Tribunal dt. 18.03.2021 was recalled for adjudication of Grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2 taken by the revenue. With this background, the grounds of appeal

Deepak Poptani, Agra vs. J.A.O Circle 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 42/AGR/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 43B

assessee was also dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 14.02.2024. However, this Tribunal, vide order dated 27.08.2025 passed in assessee’s miscellaneous application No. 03/Agr/2024 moved u/s. 254(2) of the Act, partly recalled the order passed on 14.02.2024 to the extent of hearing on ground No. 1 relating ... revenue on the aforesaid limited issue. 3. We noticed at the time of passing order dated 27.08.2025 on assessee’s miscellaneous application No. 03/Agr/2024 that, while adjudicating ground No. 1, the Tribunal seems to have lost sight of bifurcation provided by assessee in his written submissions dated 09.02.2024 and treated

Manish Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 40(1), Delhi

ITA 1909/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M. A No. 194/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15 In Ita No.1909/Del/2019) & Manish Garg Vs Ito 160, Vaishali, Pitampura, Ward-40(1), New Delhi Delhi Pan-Aaopg3605M (Respondent) (Appellant) M. A No. 195/Del/2023 (A.Y 2015-16 In Ita No.1908/Del/2019) & Meghagarg Vs Ito 160, Vaishali, Pitampura, Ward-40(1), New Delhi Delhi Pan-Aecpg7098C (Respondent) (Appellant) Applicant By None Respondent By Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. Dr

Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21 .11.2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The above mentioned Miscellaneous Applications are filed in respect of the orders dated 03/03/2023 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos.1908/Del/2019 & 1909/Del/2019 pertaining to Assessment Years ... respectively. 2. The Assessee in the Miscellaneous Applications contended that the Assessee sent an e-mail on 29/09/2021 and on 17/05/2022 through post for withdrawal of the Appeal filed by the respective Assessees as 2 M.A Nos. 194 & 195/Del/2025 Manish Garg & Megha Garg Vs. ITO the Assessees have opted

Megha Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 40(1), Delhi

ITA 1908/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Giridhar Gopal Thakur (Through L/H Shridhar Girdhar Thakur), Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2370/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2370/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Giridhar Gopal Thakur V The Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Shridhar S Ward-2, Panvel. Giridhar Thakur), At Dhutum, Post Jasai, Uran, Dist.Raigad – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Akcpt4076F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajinkya Vaishampayan Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule (Through Virtual Hearing) – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 29.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 28Section 56

Legal Heir has been brought on record. Ld.AR also filed copy of order of Hon’ble Joint Civil Judge, Panvel dated 22.08.2025 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1648/2024 brining on record the Legal Heirs. 3. However, ld.CIT(A) has erroneously passed an order without bringing on record the Legal Heir

Jai Kankaria Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Exempt, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2146/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2146/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Jai Kankaria Foundation Vs Cpc, Bangalore/ 5, Middleton Street, Kolkata Ito Ward-1(1), Exempt, Kolkata Pan No. :Aaatj 2147 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranobesh Sarkar, Advocates रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Cit(A)-7, Delhi, Dated 14.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-2020 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed By The Ld.Cit(A) On Account Of Delay Of 28 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No.21 Of 2022 In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020, Dated 10.01.2022, Wherein The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed To Exclude The Period Of Limitation For The Period As Mentioned In The Said Judgment On Account Of Covid-19. The Relevant Observations Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Are As Under :- 4. The Present Miscellaneous Application Has Been Filed By The Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association In The Context Of The Spread Of The New Variant Of The Covid-19 & The Drastic Surge In The Number Of Covid Cases Across The Country. Considering The Prevailing Conditions, The Applicants Are Seeking The Following:

For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(1)

account of delay of 28 days. In this regard, ld. AR drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, dated 10.01.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to exclude ... said judgment on account of Covid-19. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are as under :- 4. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association in the context of the spread of the new variant of the COVID

DCIT, CC - 3(4), Kolkata vs. Roys Institute of Competitive Examination Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1258/KOL/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1258/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..….…Appellant Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 5Th Floor, Room No. 515, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Roys Institute Of Competitive Examination Pvt. Limited,…………………………..……...…….Respondent 11/1, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Aaccr4567N] Appearances By: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

appeal or this case falls under any of the exceptions provided in the instruction, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of this order and revival of the appeal. Such an application should be filed within the time limit provided

Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Salem

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2358/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2358/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Src Projects Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 4-B, Lakshmipuram, Circle-(1), Gandhi Road, Salem-636 007. Salem. [Pan: Aagcs 3528 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Corporation & Others in MA No.202 & 203/Chny/2022 for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 order dated 01.08.2023 which held as under: 1. By way of captioned Miscellaneous Applications, the Revenue seeks our indulgence in Tribunal order passed in captioned appeals on 11.04.2022. The revenue has filed similar applications in bunch of appeals

Matrix Sea Foods India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT (OSD) Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 102/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Matrix Sea Foods Vs. Acit ( Osd ) India Limited, Hyderabad Ward 16(4) Pan:Aaecm4113H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

deposit of cost, the Tribunal shall restore the appeal and decide the same in accordance with law on its own merits. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.” 3.1 On perusal of the above, we find that the Hon’ble High

Nalanda Group of Management Education, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 140/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

above grounds.” 3. The appeal was earlier dismissed vide ITA No. 140/KOL/2024 for AY 2013-14 order dated 07.06.2024. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application which was allowed and the order was recalled vide order dated 17.04.2025 in MA No. 6/KOL/2025 arising out of ITA No. 140/KOL/2024. Consequently, the appeal

Late Mr.Bezwada Venkatram Reddy (Rep by Legal Heir Smt.B.Kamakshi), Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 957/CHNY/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 956 & 957/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Late Mr. Bezwada Venkatram The Deputy Commissioner Reddy, Vs. Of Income Tax, (Rep. By Legal Heir Central Circle – 3(4), Smt. B. Kamakshi), Chennai Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, No.20, Dr. Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Agdpb 3601R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

impugned addition made for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 confirmed the view taken by the CIT(A). Thereafter, the assessee filed miscellaneous applications in MA Nos.122 & 123/CHNY/2024. The Tribunal vide order dated 08.10.2025, recalled the Tribunal order in ITA Nos.956 & 957/CHNY/2022 for the assessment years

Late Mr.Bezwada Venkatram Reddy (Rep by Legal Heir Smt.B.Kamakshi), Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 956/CHNY/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Samarth Fablon Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 73/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 73/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..….…Appellant Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Samarth Fablon Pvt. Limited,..……...…….Respondent Gandhi House, 4Th Floor, 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-700013 [Pan:Aakcs7663N] Appearances By: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 5984/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

should have been discussed on the basis of paper book filed. Without going into the various other aspects which have been raised in the Miscellaneous Application on various grounds, we deem fit that the order should be recalled and be heard afresh on the basis of material brought on record ... paper book on merits. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2005-06 is recalled and the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed." 2.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, similar direction was given for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08.He thus submitted that all appeals are to be heard afresh based

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the years stands partly allowed

ITA 5983/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 5982/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

should have been discussed on the basis of paper book filed. Without going into the various other aspects which have been raised in the Miscellaneous Application on various grounds, we deem fit that the order should be recalled and be heard afresh on the basis of material brought on record ... paper book on merits. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2005-06 is recalled and the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed." 2.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, similar direction was given for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08. He thus submitted that all appeals are to be heard

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

ITA 3084/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 1Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

other hand, the Ld. CIT (DR) filed a written submission, which is reproduced as under: “1. PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS 1.1 The present Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee have been allowed on the limited ground that the Tribunal's order dated 23/08/2021 did not address the specific issue regarding "defective notice