ACIT, UDAIPUR V. SHRI NARENDRA BATHVI, UDAIPUR

MA 23/JODH/2014

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 23/Jodh/2014) filed by the revenue against a previous Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2005-06. The original Tribunal decision had restored an appeal to the CIT (A) for adjudication on merits, specifically addressing the issue of delay in filing the appeal under section 249(2). The revenue's application sought to revisit the issue of Advance Tax deposit as per section 294(4), which was noted in a deficiency letter but not adjudicated. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the legal framework, dismissed the revenue's application, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, which restricts the Tribunal's powers under Section 254(2) to rectifying apparent mistakes only.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474488 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Other Referred Cases: Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (IT-4), Mumbai [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 23/Jodh/2014 (A/o ITA No. 604/Jodh/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: ACIT, Circle-1, Shri Narendra Bathvi, Udaipur C/o. Prakash Javria, Advocate Rajasthan High Court, 1* Floor, 109, Samridhi Complex, Opp. Krishi Upaj Mandi, Udaipur — PAN No. ANSPB8917E Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R.) Date of Hearing 13.02.2025. Date of Pronouncement ORDER The Miscellaneous Application by the assessee is directed against the Tribunal order dated 11/07/2012 passed in ITA No. ITA No. 604/JU/2010 in respect of Assessment Year: 2005-06. 2. None attended for the assesee. However, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusal of impugned order, we find that the Tribunalhasd ded the 02.2025. 19 M.A.No. 23/odh/2014 (A/o ITA No. 604/Jodh/2010) Assessment Year: 2005-6) issue of delay in filing appeal u/s 249(2) in favour of assessee while restoring the appeal to the Ld. CIT (A) to be adjudicated on merits. 3. The Ld. DR submitted that the issue of Advance Tax deposit as per provisions of section 294(4) pointed out in deficiency letter was remained to be adjudicated and he pleaded that the Tribunal order may be recalled to adjudicate the issue whether the appellant is exempted from depositing tax under section 294 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Accordingly, the Ld. DR requested that the order dated 12/09/2023 passed in ITA No. 65/Jodh/2022 may kindly be recalled. 4. Admittedly, the Tribunal has decided appeal on merits of the case and decided the issue of delay in filing appeal before the CIT (A) as provided u/s 249(2) in favour of assessee while restoring the appeal to the Ld. CIT (A) to be adjudicate the matter on merits. 5. Apparently, there was no error or mistake in the Tribunal order. the Ld. AR contention raised in the MA would amount to review of the Tribunal decision which is not permitted under the provisions of miscellaneous application u/s 254(2). In view of the judgment of Hon’ble A Court in M.A.No. 23/Jodh/2014 (A/o ITA No. 604/Jodh/2010) Assessment Year: 2005-6) the case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (IT-4), Mumbai [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) the MA of the assessee would be liable to be dismissed. 6. From the record, it is evident that the ITAT has passed the order 12/09/2023 passed in ITA No. ITA No. 65/Jodh/2022 in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19 in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act on merits of the case within the scope and ambit of the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal conferred under Section 254 (2) of the Act. Meaning thereby that merely because the assessee might have in detail argued on the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Law is settled by Hon’ble APEX COURT in the case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. (Supra) that the powers of ITAT under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Order pronounced ON. A evdere GG d2025 under Rule Dated 1691 QG12025 M.A.No. 23/Jodh/2014 (A/o ITA No. 604/Jodh/2010) Assessment Year: 2005-6) 7. In the above view, we find no merit in the ground of the revenue Miscellaneous Application. Therefore, none of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. 8 In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the revenue is rejected. 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Copies to : (1)The appellant. (2)The respondent. (3)CIT (4)CIT(A) (5)Departmental Representative (6)Guard File By Oder Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur Sa (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (DR. MPfH LAL MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd "