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

MA 21/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application (MA) filed by the revenue seeking to recall an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in a previous appeal (ITA No.1381/Bang/2014). The revenue contended that there was a mistake apparent in the earlier ITAT order. However, the MA was filed significantly later than the prescribed time limit, leading to its dismissal. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents to support its decision that it could not condone the delay in filing the MA, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in legal proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312572 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• 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, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SEEKING
• Assessee Lawyers: PREETI CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"MP No.21/Bang/2025 Rajkumar HUF, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP No.21/Bang/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.1381/Bang/2024) Assessment Year: 2007-08 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 Appellant by : Shri Mahesh, Advocate (Young professional) on behalf of Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Respondent by : Ms. Preeti Choudhary, A.R. Date of Hearing : 02.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The revenue by way of this miscellaneous application seeking to recall the order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.1381/Bang/2014 dated 31.10.2022 on the reasoning that there is a mistake apparent in the order of the ITAT. 2. Before us, both ld. A.R. as well as ld. D.R. filed adjournment requests citing their personal difficulties. However, on going through the note of the registry, we find that the MA is time barred by 696 days which is beyond the time limit as prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). On going through the records, we also find a petition for seeking condonation of delay in filing miscellaneous petition dated 26.3.2025 which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: MP No.21/Bang/2025 Rajkumar HUF, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 2.1 On going through the above condonation petition, we observe that this MA is filed by the revenue beyond the period prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Act. MP No.21/Bang/2025 Rajkumar HUF, Bangalore Page 3 of 4 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. 3. In the result, miscellaneous petition filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd May, 2025 Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) Vice President Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 2nd May, 2025. VG/SPS MP No.21/Bang/2025 Rajkumar HUF, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 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. "