DCIT,CPC/DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH V. M/S GUPTA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

MA 59/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the revenue's applications under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, seeking recall of a Tribunal order that had deleted disallowances made for late payments towards EPF & ESI for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The revenue's request was based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision and amendments to the Act, which they argued supported their original position. However, the applications were dismissed due to a significant delay in filing, with the Tribunal citing the lack of provisions to condone such delay beyond six months.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826727 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs. CIT, Ram Baburao Salve
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Extension of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. M.A. No. 59/CHANDI/2025 [In ITA No.324/CHANDI/2021] (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. M.A. No. 60/CHANDI/2025 [In ITA No.325/CHANDI/2021] (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) DCIT Circle 1(1) Chandigarh – 160017 बनाम/ Vs. M/s Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. C/o Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) House No. 1238. Sector – 22B Chandigarh - 160022 ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAECG-3671-J (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) Revenue by : None Assessee by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 06-01-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of these applications u/s 254(2), the revenue seeks our indulgence in Tribunal common order passed in captioned appeals on 24-02-2022. The bench, in its order, deleted the disallowance made Printed from counselvise.com 2 by revenue u/s 36(1)(va) for late payments towards EPF & ESI in both the years. The revenue seek recall of the order in terms of subsequent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs. CIT (2022) 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC) deciding this issue in favor of the revenue. The revenue also relies on the amendment brought into Sec. 36(1)(va) and Sec.43B w.e.f. 01-04-2021. However, the undisputed position that emerges is that the applications have been preferred with a delay of 162 days. The revenue seeks condonation of the same on the ground that the decision which is being relied upon has been rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court subsequently. 2. Undisputedly, the present applications have been filed with a delay. Considering the provisions of Sec. 254(2) which mandate a period of 6 months for such indulgence, this applications are 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: - 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: Printed from counselvise.com 3 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 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, 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. Respectfully following the same, we would hold that the present applications are not maintainable, being time barred u/s 254(2). Printed from counselvise.com 4 3. In the result, both the applications stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 06th January, 2026. -Sd- -Sd- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 06-01-2026 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 "