INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBIKAPUR, SURGUJA V. SMT. SAROJ SHRIVASTAVA, CHIRMIRI, BHARATPUR

MA 1/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application filed by the revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 91/RPR/2024, which pertained to the assessment year 2018-19. The revenue challenged the deletion of a penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.), arguing that the ITAT erred in its decision by not appreciating that the A.O. had recorded satisfaction in both the assessment and penalty orders. The Tribunal found the application to be time-barred and dismissed it, referencing the lack of statutory power to condone the delay in such applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35670 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Raja Malwinder Singh Vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: B. SUBRAMANIYAM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.01/RPR/2025 [Arising out of ITA No.91/RPR/2024] Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. Smt. Saroj Shrivastava Main Road, Haldibari, Pin-497 449 PAN: AOPPS0439E ….…Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri B. Subramaniyam, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 07.02.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2025 2 MA No.01/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ARUN KHODPIA, AM The present miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 91/RPR/2024, dated 31.05.2024. 2. The Revenue by filing the present miscellaneous application has assailed the following grounds: “1. Whether on the point of law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleting the penalty imposed by the A.O with the observation that “no satisfaction in the assessment order or with recording of satisfaction without specifying the relevant reason for which the penalties have been initiated” without appreciating the fact that the A.O has drawn the satisfaction both in Assessment order and penalty order? 2. The order of the Ld. ITAT is erroneous both in law and on facts. 3. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing.” 3. Shri B. Subramaniyam, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short “AR”) for the assessee at the threshold of hearing of the application submitted that as the captioned application filed by the revenue is time barred by 37 days, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed as not- maintainable. 3 MA No.01/RPR/2025 4. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties on the aforesaid application filed by the revenue. We find that the captioned application has been filed by the revenue beyond the stipulated time period contemplated u/s. 254(2) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, Section 254(2) of the Act is culled out 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.]” 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that as the Tribunal unlike as in case of an appeal, does not have any power to condone the delay involved in a miscellaneous application filed under sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Act, therefore, the captioned application filed by the revenue beyond the stipulated time period is not maintainable. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Raja 4 MA No.01/RPR/2025 Malwinder Singh Vs. Union of India (2005) 278 ITR 568 (P&H) (which though was passed referring to the prescribed time period of 4 years as was earlier available, and had been vide the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f.01.06.2016 substituted by a period “six months”). For the sake of clarity, the observation of the Hon’ble High Court are culled out as under: “7. The above observations are apt in the present context. In discerning the correct interpretation, the purpose for which the provision was brought in namely, to lay down the outer limit, within which the order could be modified, cannot be lost sight of. In our view, the provision of period of limitation under Section 254(2) of the Act cannot be reduced to one of ornamental existence through the interpretative process, as pleaded by learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. In our opinion, therefore, an application for rectification of mistake in an order passed by the Tribunal has to be filed within 4 years from the date of the order and not at any time. Any other interpretation, in our view, would lead to absurdity and cannot therefore be accepted. The aforementioned circular of the Board is of no avail of the assessee, inasmuch as it only seeks to remove the difficulties, which an assessee or the revenue may face on account of non-disposal of an application for rectification filed within the period of four years. The circular clearly stipulates that the application for rectification under Section 154, pari materia to Section 254(2). of the Act has to be filed within the statutory time limit of four years. In fact, the circular also goes to show that the Assessing Officer of the Tribunal, as the case may be, assuming that it was applicable to applications filed under Section 254(2) of the Act, has no jurisdiction to amend the order after the expiry of four years. 9. For the view, we have taken, it is unnecessary to deal with the ingenious argument advanced by learned Counsel for the assessee with regard to the significance of 'comma', appearing in the section after the expression \"Tribunal may\". 5 MA No.01/RPR/2025 10. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.” 6. Accordingly, we are of the view that the power to condone the delay with the Tribunal can only be exercised if it is specifically provided in the statute itself. As observed by us hereinabove, the Tribunal is vested with the power to condone the delay with regard to appeals and cross-objections only, if it is satisfied about the sufficiency of reasons about such delay as enshrined in clause (5) of section 253 of the Act, but no such express power are vested with it to condone the delay involved in filing of a miscellaneous application u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the captioned application filed by the revenue being barred by limitation is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 7. Resultantly, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 10th day of February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- RAVISH SOOD ARUN KHODPIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 10th February, 2025 ***SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 6 MA No.01/RPR/2025 3. The Pr. CIT, Bilaspur (C.G) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "