DCIT, CIRCLE- 22(1), NEW DELHI V. SAMTEL COLOR LTD., NEW DELHI

MA 54/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-22(1), New Delhi, as the applicant, and Samtel Color Ltd. as the respondent. The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to recall the Tribunal's order dated 17.08.2021, which dismissed an appeal due to procedural lapses, including the incorrect designation of the respondent in the context of the company's liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016. The Tribunal had previously dismissed the appeal, noting that the official liquidator should have been named as the respondent instead of the company itself, which was already under liquidation at the time of the appeal's filing. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the MA was based on the interpretation that section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act does not allow for a review of its own decisions but only permits rectification of apparent mistakes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26171 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Liquidation
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. 54/Del/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.2751/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-22(1), C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Vs. Samtel Color Ltd. 501, Copia Corporate Suits, District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi PAN: AAACS6589D (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM: By way of this Miscellaneous Application (hereinafter, the ‘MA’), the applicant Revenue has requested for recalling of the Tribunal order dated 17.08.2021 in the case of the assessee in the ITA No. 2751/Del/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Further, Vide the said MA, the Revenue has requested for treating the official liquidator as the respondent assessee instead of the assessee named as Samtel Color Ltd. on the reasoning that the said respondent assessee company did not get liquidated, by the order of the NCLT, at the time of filing appeal. Applicant by None Respondent by Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.03.2025 2 MA No.54/Del/2022 M/s. Samtel Color Ltd. 2. We have heard Sr. Departmental Representative at length and perused the record. Vide order dated 17.08.2021 in the ITA No. 2751/Del/2018, the Tribunal has held as under: - “2. The time of hearing of the appellant has come over notice that the above respondent company has already been referred for liquidation by the order of the liquidation passed by the principal Company law Tribunal, u/s 33(2) of the IBC 2016 on 4/7/2018 in CPNo [IB]/132 (PB)/2017. Even otherwise prior to the filing of the appeal by the learned assessing officer, it was known to the learned assessing officer that the assessee is going through a liquidation process/resolution Under IBC 2016 Despite the above fact the assessee was made as a respondent instead of IRP then or official liquidator now. Even otherwise the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is late by 39 days. Though the learned assessing officer has moved the application for condonation of delay by letter dated 19/04/2018. but because of the reason that the respondent assessee has already been under liquidation, the appeal should have been filed by making the official liquidator as a respondent. In view of this the appeal of the learned assessing officer deserves to be dismissed on this count.\" 3. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the learned assessing officer for the reasons stated above without direction/liberty to the learned assessing officer that if the AO wants to pursue the above appeal, the respondent should be the official liquidator appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal. 4. Accordingly appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed.\" 3. We have carefully gone through the contents of the MA filed by the Revenue. In our opinion, there is no mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’). In the case in hand, the Tribunal cannot, in 3 MA No.54/Del/2022 M/s. Samtel Color Ltd. exercise of its power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act, treat the Official Liquidator as the respondent assessee. Vide this MA, the Revenue is merely seeking review of order of the Tribunal. It is well settled law that what can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act is a mistake, which is apparent and patent from the record. Unless there are manifest errors, which are obvious, clear and self-evident, the Tribunal cannot recall its previous order in an attempt to review the order. The mistake has to be such for which no elaborate reason or enquiry is necessary. The powers so conferred under section 254(2) of the Act do not contemplate rehearing which would have the effect of re-writing an order affecting the merits of the case. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between the power to review and the power to rectify a mistake. 4. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are considered opinion that there cannot be any dispute with the proposition that power under section 254(2) of the Act is to rectify the mistake apparent from the record, but section 254(2) of the Act does not empower the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to review of its earlier order or re-write a fresh judgment. By present MA, the Revenue virtually seeking review of the Tribunal’s order dated 17.08.2021 in the case of the assessee in the ITA No. 2751/Del/2018. We are of the considered view that the present MA is not a case of rectification of apparent and patent mistake under section 254(2) of the Act. Recalling of the order by treating the Official Liquidator as the respondent assessee is held beyond the 4 MA No.54/Del/2022 M/s. Samtel Color Ltd. purview of any revision under section 254(2) of the Act as the Tribunal has no power to review its own decision. We therefore, reject the MA filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the MA filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th March, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (C. N. PRASAD) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05.03.2025. Binita, Sr.PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT/PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. Sr. DR, New Delhi Asstt. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi "