INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE V. SRI RAJKUMAR C(HUF), BANGALORE

MA 39/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (revenue) filing miscellaneous petitions against Rajkumar HUF, challenging the Tribunal's earlier decision in ITA Nos.1379 & 1380/Bang/2014 for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07. The revenue sought to recall the Tribunal's order, claiming there was a mistake apparent in the orders. However, the petitions were dismissed due to a significant delay in filing, which was beyond the statutory limit prescribed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal referenced a similar case involving the same assessee for a different assessment year, where a similar delay was also deemed non-maintainable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706851 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: A.S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. ACIT, Arvindbhai H. Shah vs. ACIT, Ms. Shamsunissa Begum vs. DCIT, Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, ACIT vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: PREETI CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"MP Nos.38 & 39/Bang/2025 Rajkumar HUF, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP Nos.38 & 39/Bang/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos.1379 & 1380/Bang/2014) Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 ITO Ward 4(3)(2) Bangalore Vs. Rajkumar HUF No.259/B, 7th Cross, HSR Layout Sector 1 Bangalore 560 102 PAN NO : AAMHR4074B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Preeti Choudhary, A.R. Revenue by : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 O R D E R PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These miscellaneous petitions(MP) of revenue are arising out of the order of this Tribunal in ITA Nos.1379 & 1380/Bang/2014 for the AYs 2005-06 & 2006-07 dated 31.10.2022. The revenue is seeking to recall the order passed by the ITAT on the reasoning that there is a mistake apparent in the orders of the ITAT. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is delay of 774 days in filing of these Misc. Petitions. 3. Ld DR fairly conceded that under similar circumstances the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case already dismissed the MP of assessee. The DR has also filed the copy of Coordinate Bench order rendered in MP No.21/Bang/2025 for the AY 2007-08. MP Nos.38 & 39/Bang/2025 Rajkumar HUF, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 4. Ongoing through the records, it has been observed that similar miscellaneous application filed by the revenue previously vide MP No.21/Bang/2025 for the AY 2007-08 against the order of this Tribunal in ITA No.1381/Bang/2024 dated 31.10.2022, wherein the coordinate bench of this Tribunal has dismissed this MA as non- maintainable being barred by limitation. “2.1 The relevant observations of the coordinate bench are as under: “2.2 We are of the considered opinion that the MA is filed belatedly beyond 6 months from the end of the month in which the order was communicated to the respective parties. Hence, this Tribunal has no power u/s 254(2) of the Act to condone the delay since this MA is filed beyond the time allowed under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. In holding so, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements: a) A.S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. ACIT reported in (2018) 300 ITR 96 (Kar.) b) Arvindbhai H. Shah vs. ACIT (2004) 91 ITD 101 (Ahd.)(SB) c) Ms. Shamsunissa Begum vs. DCIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 96 (Bangalore Trib.) d) Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2009) 120 ITD 481 (Delhi) e) ACIT vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair (2010) 193 Taxman 28 (Cochin) (MAG) 2.3 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the decision cited above, we hold that the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s 254(2) of the Act and therefore, the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, we dismiss this MA filed by the revenue being barred by limitation.” 4.1 In view of the above, both these miscellaneous petitions filed by the revenue are dismissed. MP Nos.38 & 39/Bang/2025 Rajkumar HUF, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 5. In the result, both the miscellaneous petitions filed by the revenue are dismissed on account of delay. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th July, 2025 Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) Vice President Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 7th July, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "