ACIT, CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH V. SH. AMARJEET SINGH RANDHAWA, CHANDIGARH

MA 25/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves three Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue seeking rectification of orders previously passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Chandigarh. These applications were filed concerning the assessment years 2010-11 and 2019-20, involving respondents Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa and Smt. Amandeep Kaur. The Revenue's applications were filed after a delay of more than one year from the date of the respective orders. The Tribunal, referencing Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and various judicial precedents, particularly from the Karnataka High Court, ruled that it could not condone the delay and thus dismissed the applications as time-barred.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706860 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2021
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), Karturi Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRUTI KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “ए” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Miscellaneous Application Nos. 25/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 795 /Chd/ 2017) िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The ACIT, Circle 5(1), Chandigarh बनाम Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa #82, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAPPR6056G अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent Miscellaneous Application Nos. 26/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 796 /Chd/ 2017) िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The ITO Ward 5(1), Chandigarh बनाम Smt. Amandeep Kaur, # 82, Sector 27A, Chandigarh ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABCPK2432R अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent Miscellaneous Application Nos. 36/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 254 /Chd/ 2021) िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2019-20 ADIT, CPC/ITO Ward -5(1), Chandigarh बनाम Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa #82, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAPPR6056G अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04/07/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/07/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: These three Miscellaneous Applications (M.A. Nos. 25, 26, and 36/Chd/2025) have been filed by the Revenue under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the above-mentioned cases. The Tribunal had passed orders in the respective appeals on the following dates: 2 Order dated 11.11.2020 in the case of Amarjeet Singh Randhawa Order dated 11.11.2020 in the case of Smt. Amandeep Kaur Order dated 28.02.2022 in the case of Shri Amarjeet Singh Randhawa 2. At the outset, it is an admitted position that all three applications have been filed after a delay of more than one year from the date of the respective orders of the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. DR fairly submitted that the delay had occurred but offered no specific justification or explanation for condonation, apart from general administrative lapses. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR strongly opposed the maintainability of these Miscellaneous Applications and submitted that under the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal does not have the power to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. The Ld. AR relied upon the binding precedents, including decisions of various High Courts, and specifically relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Karturi Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd., which affirms the mandatory nature of the six-month limitation period under Section 254(2). 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is a settled position of law that the period of limitation under Section 254(2) for filing a rectification application is six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. The language of the provision is unambiguous and mandatory. The Tribunal, being a creature of statute, cannot assume powers not specifically conferred upon it by the statute. 5.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), while recognizing the scope of rectification under Section 254(2), has categorically held that such rectification must be confined to mistakes apparent from the record and that applications must be filed within the prescribed time. The power to condone delay is not available under Section 254(2), unlike other provisions such as Sections 253 or 260A where express powers are conferred. 3 5.2 The decision of the Karnataka High Court in Karturi Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd., relied upon by the Ld. AR, supports the view that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing of rectification applications under Section 254(2) and any such application filed beyond the limitation period is incompetent and liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 5.3 In view of the above settled legal position and in the absence of any enabling provision empowering this Tribunal to condone delay in filing rectification applications, we find that these miscellaneous applications are barred by limitation and not maintainable. 5.4 Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 25/Chd/2025, 26/Chd/2025, and 36/Chd/2025 filed by the Revenue are dismissed in limine as time-barred. 6. In the result, all the above Miscellaneous Applications are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल लिलत क ुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "