ACIT,CC, HALDWANI, HALDWANI V. VEDVATI SINGH, DEHRADUN

MA 11/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple Miscellaneous Applications (M.A No. 8,9,10,11,12 & 14/DDN/2025) filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Central Circle Haldwani against Vedvati Singh, concerning the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18. The applications were filed to rectify an 'error apparent from record' in the Tribunal's earlier orders. However, the applications were filed with a delay of 22 days beyond the statutory limit of six months prescribed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act for filing such applications. The Tribunal, referencing a Supreme Court judgment and a Bombay High Court decision, dismissed the applications due to the delay, emphasizing that the Tribunal lacks the authority to condone such delays.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826156 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Income Tax officer Ward 4(5) Vs. Infantry Security and Facilities, Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ANI Integrated Services Ltd, Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy, Checkmate Services Private Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: POONAM SHARMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

"1 M.A No. 8,9,10,11,12 & 14/DDN/2025 ACIT Vs. Vedvati Singh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN, SMC BEFORE SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M. A NO. 8/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2011-12 in ITA No.27/DDN/2023) M. A NO. 9/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2013-14 in ITA No.28/DDN/2023) M. A NO.10/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2014-15 in ITA No.29/DDN/2023) M. A NO.11/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2015-16 in ITA No.30/DDN/2023) M. A NO. 14/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2016-17 in ITA No.31/DDN/2023) M. A NO.12/DDN/2025 (A.Y 2017-18 in ITA No.32/DDN/2023) ACIT Central Circle Haldwani (APPELLANT) vs Vedvati Singh 216, Arya Nagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001 PAN- (RESPONDENT) Applicant by Shri Kanwal K. Juneja, CA Respondent by Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT, DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The above mentioned Miscellaneous Applications are filed in respect of the orders dated 14/12/2023 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 6320/Del/2016 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2017- 18 respectively. 2. There is a delay of 22 days in filing the captioned Miscellaneous Applications by the Department, wherein it is sought to rectify ‘the error apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal’. Date of Hearing 12.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A No. 8,9,10,11,12 & 14/DDN/2025 ACIT Vs. Vedvati Singh 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Income Tax officer Ward 4(5) Vs. Infantry Security and Facilities in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 42236/2025 vide Judgment dated 03/12/2024, dismissed the Appeal of the Department wherein the Revenue challenged the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in writ petition 17175 of 2024 and connected matters, wherein Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay held as under:- “7. It is next submitted that in any event, the locus to file Miscellaneous Application in terms of Section 254(2), was available provided such Miscellaneous Application was to be filed within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the limitation of six months is prescribed and/or available by virtue of a statutory provision of sub-Section (2) of Section 254 of the IT Act. In the present case, clearly the Miscellaneous Applications were filed with a delay of 92 days. It is, therefore, the petitioner’s submission that in terms of Section 254(2), the Miscellaneous Application was per se barred by limitation. It is submitted that this aspect is also not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of Section 254(2) hence the same would be required to be held invalid and illegal. 8. In support of such contentions, Ms. MadhaviTavanandi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 2 , Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ANI Integrated Services Ltd 3 , as also the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue has supported the impugned order. He would fairly submit that now the parameters of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the IT Act are well settled, while not disputing the principles of law as held in the decision cited on behalf of the petitioner. He would also submit that the decision in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited (Supra), was rendered subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal allowing the petitioner’s appeal vide order dated 26 July 2022 and hence, such decision certainly was not available when the Tribunal disposed of the petitioner’s appeal subject matter of the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find that there is much substance in the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner. At the outset, we may observe that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as invoked by the Revenue, was the jurisdiction as conferred on the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the IT Act provides, which is in relation to the orders passed by the Tribunal. Section 254, is required to be noted, which reads thus: Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A No. 8,9,10,11,12 & 14/DDN/2025 ACIT Vs. Vedvati Singh “254. Orders of Appellate Tribunal (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. (1A) [***] (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this subsection on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees. (2A) In every appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 253: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, after considering the merits of the application made by the assessee, pass an order of stay in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under sub-section (1) of section 253, for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of such order subject to the condition that the assessee deposits not less than twenty per cent of the amount of tax, interest, fee, penalty, or any other sum payable under the provisions of this Act, or furnishes security of equal amount in respect thereof and the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within the said period of stay specified in that order: Provided further that no extension of stay shall be granted by the Appellate Tribunal, where such appeal is not so disposed of within the said period of stay as specified in the order of stay, unless the assessee makes an application and has complied with the condition referred to in the first proviso and the Appellate Tribunal is satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, so however, that the aggregate of the period of stay originally allowed and the period of stay so extended shall not exceed three hundred and sixty-five days and the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within the period or periods of stay so extended or allowed: Provided also that if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period allowed under the first proviso or the period or periods extended or allowed under the second proviso, which shall not, in any case, exceed three hundred and sixty-five days, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of such period or periods, even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 4 M.A No. 8,9,10,11,12 & 14/DDN/2025 ACIT Vs. Vedvati Singh (2B) The cost of any appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be at the discretion of that Tribunal. (3) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of any orders passed under this section to the assessee and to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. (4) Save as provided in section 256 or section 260A, orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final.” (emphasis supplied) 11. A perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the IT Act, clearly indicates that the Tribunal at any time within six months from the end of month in which the order was passed by the Tribunal, with a view to rectify any “mistake apparent from the record”, amend any order passed by under sub Section (1) and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to the notice by the assessee or the assessing officer by following the procedure as set out in the said provision. What is significant is that such jurisdiction on the Tribunal is conferred with a view to “rectify any mistake apparent from the record” and accordingly amend any order, that too on the applicant satisfying the conditions, that such mistake is brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the assessee or the assessing officer “within six months” from the end of the month, when the order was passed.” 4. In view of above fact that the present M.As have been filed beyond the period of limitation, as the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous application u/s 254 (2) of the Act, by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Income Tax officer Ward 4(5) Vs. Infantry Security and Facilities, (supra), the present Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed on delay in latches. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/01/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07/01/2026 R.N, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com 5 M.A No. 8,9,10,11,12 & 14/DDN/2025 ACIT Vs. Vedvati Singh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "