DCIT, CIRCLE -6 (1), MOHALI V. M/S AQUA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MOHALI

MA 77/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue against various respondents for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. These applications were filed for rectification or recall of orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. The primary legal issue was whether these applications were maintainable given that they were filed beyond the statutory six-month period allowed for such actions under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts, concluded that it lacked the authority to extend the statutory limitation period and thus dismissed the applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712346 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Karuturi Global Ltd vs DCIT, Leena Power Tech Engineers Ltd vs DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR; RANJIT KAUR; VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY JAIN; VIRTUAL; TEJMOHAN SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च᭛डीगढ़ ᭠यायपीठ,च᭛डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No 70/Chd/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 94/Chd/2022 ) िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2019-20 The Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1) Chandigarh बनाम Vs. Maahir Spices Private Limited 3141, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh ᭭थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAGCM9075L अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱओर से/Assessee by : None राज᭭व कᳱओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR M.A. Nos 71 & 72/Chd/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 269 & 270/Chd/2021 ) िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The ITO, Ward 5(5), Chandigarh बनाम Vs. Millennium Outsourcing and Manpower Consulting Private Limited C.A Ajay Kumar Jain, SCO-8-81, 4th Floor Section 17-C, Chandigarh-160017 ᭭थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAGCM1737K अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Jain, CA (Virtual) राज᭭व कᳱओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR M.A. Nos 76 TO 78/Chd/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 338 TO 340/Chd/2022 ) िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2017-18 TO 2019-20 Printed from counselvise.com 2 The DCIT Circle-6(1) Mohali, Punjab बनाम Vs. M/s Aqua Systems Private Limited C/o Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate # 527, Sector 10D, Chandigarh-160011 ᭭थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AABCA3980B अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज᭭व कᳱओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25/07/2025 उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, JM : These are Miscellaneous Applications (M.As) filed by the Revenue for the captioned assessment years. 2. At the outset, we notice that all these M.As are barred by limitation. The date of passing of the Order and institution of M.As. in respect of each are as under: - Sr. No.. M.A.No. arising out of ITA Number. Date of Institution Date of passing of order 1 MA No. 70/Chd/2025 In ITA No. 94/Chd/2022 14/02/2023 13/04/2022 2 MA Nos. 71 & 72/Chd/2025 In ITA Nos. 269 & 270 /Chd/2021 23/01/2023 01/12/2021 3 MA Nos. 76 to 78/Chd/2025 In ITA No. 338 to 340/Chd/2022 15/03/2023 13/06/2022 3. The ld. AR for the Assessee submitted that these applications are required to be dismissed being barred by limitation as provided u/s 254 of the I.T. Act. Printed from counselvise.com 3 4. The ld. DR had submitted that these applications are required to be allowed as the Department has filed the condonation of delay applications. 5 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. Admittedly, the applications for rectification / recall of the orders were filed by the Department under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Section 254(2) of the Act provide as under: 254.(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. Printed from counselvise.com 4 6. From the perusal of the above said statutory provision, it is abundantly clear that in case any application is filed either by the AO or by the assessee within six months from the end of the month in which the order has been passed. This Tribunal may amend/ rectify the mistake if any brought to its notice. 7. The law has been fairly settled that the Tribunal has no power to extend the period of limitation granted by the statute. We are of the opinion that as per the provision of Section 254, the period for filing the MAs is six months and the Tribunal being the creation of the statute is bound to follow the limitation provided in the statute i.e., the Tribunal is bound to rectify / modify the order, if an application filed by the Assessee or by the Assessing Officer within the period of six months. Since in the present case, the applications have been filed beyond the period of six months, therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that the application filed by the Assessee are not maintainable and are required to be dismissed. 8. For the above said purposes, we may fruitfully rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karuturi Global Ltd vs DCIT 116 Taxmann.com 924 and also of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Leena Power Tech Engineers Ltd vs DCIT 172 Taxmann.com 424. Printed from counselvise.com 5 9. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the applications filed by the Revenue are not maintainable as are barred by period of limitation. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the captioned MAs filed by the Revenue. 10. In view of the above, all the Misc. applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on 29/07/2025. Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) Judicial Member AG आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "