CHANDER MOHAN,YAMUNANAGAR V. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

MA 44/CHANDI/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Chander Mohan, the proprietor of M/s Classic Mushroom, who filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking to reopen the Tribunal's earlier decision which dismissed his appeals in ITA Nos. 377 and 389/Chd/2012. The applications were filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, which allows the Tribunal to amend any order to rectify any mistake apparent from the record within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. However, the applications were filed with a delay of 278 days, leading to their dismissal. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no provision for condonation of delay beyond the six-month period stipulated in Section 254(2).

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841033 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Ram Baburao Salve (162 Taxmann.com 354)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, Hon'ble VP AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, Hon'ble, AM M.A. Nos.43 & 44/Chd/2020 [In ITA Nos.377 and 389/Chd/2012] (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Chander Mohan, M/s Classic Mashroom Chitta Mandir Road, Yamunanagar बनाम/ Vs. The ITO, Yamunanagar ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ABCPL0454E (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : NONE (Adjournment application) ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 10-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25-02-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay, AM : 1. By way of the captioned applications u/s 254(2), the Assessee seeks our indulgence in the Tribunal order passed in ITA Nos. 389 & 377/Chd/2012 on 28.10.2024 wherein, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the Assessee. Printed from counselvise.com MAs 43 and 44/Chd./2020 (in ITA Nos. 377 & 389/Chd/2012) 2 2. Now, through the captioned Misc. Applications filed by the Assessee, wherein numerous grounds have been raised, Assessee intends to recall / reopen the case. 3. The Assessee has filed an application for adjournment in both the cases but keeping in view the material available on record, we reject the Assessee’s application for adjournment and proceed to decide the Application. 4. It is pointed out by the Registry that the application has been preferred with a delay of 278 days. Also, from the record, it is gathered that undisputedly, the present application has been filed with a delay. Without going into the merits of the grounds raised in the application and considering the provisions of Sec. 254(2) which mandate a period of 6 months for such indulgence, this application is to be rejected. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ram Baburao Salve (162 Taxmann.com 354) has held that there is no provision in Section 254 or any other section which provides for condonation of delay beyond six months. The substantive adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - Printed from counselvise.com MAs 43 and 44/Chd./2020 (in ITA Nos. 377 & 389/Chd/2012) 3 5. We should note that Section 254 of the Act reads as under: Orders of Appellate Tribunal. \"254. (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) xxxxxx (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 sub-section 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 subsection (1) of section 253, for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty Printed from counselvise.com MAs 43 and 44/Chd./2020 (in ITA Nos. 377 & 389/Chd/2012) 4 days from the date of such order subject to the condition that the assessee deposits not less than twenty percent 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. (2B) The cost of any appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be at the discretion of that Tribunal.\" There is no provision in Section 254 or any other section which provides for condonation of delay beyond six months. 6. In the circumstances, for reasons recorded by us in the order dated 3rd April 2024 in Interim Application (L) No.33513 of 2023 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 33146 of 2023, of the same Petitioner, even on merits of the delay, Printed from counselvise.com MAs 43 and 44/Chd./2020 (in ITA Nos. 377 & 389/Chd/2012) 5 no sufficient cause is shown for the delay. We have observed Petitioner was not only negligent but also lacked bonafides. Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. Respectfully following the same, we would hold that the present application is not maintainable, being time barred u/s 254(2). 3. In the result, the both the Misc. Applications stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 25.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH Printed from counselvise.com "