DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH V. SH. VINAY KUMAR, CHANDIGARH

MA 106/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. The application was found to be filed 14 days beyond the permissible six-month period stipulated under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act for rectification or recall of orders. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts, upheld the statutory limitation and dismissed the application, emphasizing that it is bound by the statute and cannot extend the period of limitation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785000 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2025
• 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
• Assessee Lawyers: PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL; C.A VIRTUAL MODE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “बी” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE ŵी राजपाल यादव, उपाȯƗ एवं ŵी क ृणवȶ सहाय, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM M.A. No 106/Chd/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 278/Chd/2016 ) िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The DCIT C-1, Chandigarh बनाम Vs. Shri Vinay Kumar, Prop. Tara Chand & Sons, 342, Indl. Area, Phase-1 Chandigarh ᭭थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAUPK1557A अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual Mode) राज᭭व कᳱओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/10/2025 उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11/11/2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: The present Miscellaneous Applications (M.As) filed by the Revenue for the captioned assessment year. 2. At the outset, we notice that the present M.A is barred by limitation by 14 days. 3. The Ld. AR for the Assessee submitted that the M.A. is required to be dismissed being barred by limitation as provided u/s 254 of the I.T. Act. 4. The ld. DR had submitted that the M.A. is 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 application for rectification / recall of the order were Printed from counselvise.com 2 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. 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 MA 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 application have been filed beyond the period of six months, therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that the application filed by the Assessee is 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 3 9. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the M.A filed by the Revenue is not maintainable as barred by period of limitation. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the M.A filed by the Revenue. 10. In view of the above, M.A filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- राजपाल यादव क ृणवȶ सहाय (RAJPAL YADAV) (KRINWANT SAHAY) उपाȯƗ/VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "