ITO-1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA V. MR. CHHITAR SINGH BHIKAJI, KHANDWA

MA 67/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Income Tax Officer, Khandwa, against Chhitar Singh Bhikaji, concerning an earlier ITAT order that allowed the assessee's appeal for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue sought rectification of this order, claiming a mistake apparent from the record. However, the application was dismissed due to the significant delay in filing, with the court emphasizing the lack of provision to condone such delay under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court also noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the Revenue's plea to condone the delay was not supported by any legal provision in the context of filing M/As.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633259 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT-3(1), Bhopal Vs. M/s Narmada Switchgear Private Limited Bhopal
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE ADMITTED A DELAY OF; ASHISH PORWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 4 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.67/Ind/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.653/Ind/2019 (AY: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-1, Khandwa बनाम/ Vs. Chhitar Singh Bhikaji, Village- Sihada, Tah- Khandwa, Dist.Khandwa (PAN: FRHPS0744A) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This Miscellaneous Application [“M/A”] u/s 254(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 is filed by Revenue seeking rectification/re- call of Order dated 20.04.2023 of ITAT, Indore Bench in ITA No.653/Ind/2019 for Assessment Year 2009-10 [“impugned order”] by which assessee’s appeal was allowed. ITO v/s Chhitar Singh Bhikaji M.A. No.67/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2009-10 Page 2 of 4 2. None on behalf of assessee was present. Heard the Ld. DR of Revenue and case records perused. 3. The registry has informed that present M/A is delayed and therefore time-barred. Ld. DR for Revenue admitted a delay of 379 days. Ld. DR pleaded to condone the delay and admit the M/A for hearing. 4. The relevant provision of Section 254(2) under which this M/A is filed, read as under: “(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.” 5. Thus, the language of Section 254(2) is very clear which provides for filing of M/A within six months only. We note that although there is an authority enshrined in Section 253(5) for condonation of delay in filing appeal/cross-objection but there is no authority in Section 254(2) for condonation of delay in filing ITO v/s Chhitar Singh Bhikaji M.A. No.67/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2009-10 Page 3 of 4 M/A. There are judicial rulings of ITAT also holding so. In fact, ITAT, Indore Bench has also taken this view in M.A.No.53/Ind/2023 DCIT-3(1), Bhopal Vs. M/s Narmada Switchgear Private Limited Bhopal, order dated 05.01.2024. Therefore, we have no authority to condone the delay as prayed for and admit this M/A. The same is therefore dismissed being time barred. Needless to state in the instant “Appeal & M.A” the revenue has an option u/s 254(2) which we have quoted (supra) whereas in so far as assessee is concerned recourse is under Rule 24 of Appellate Tribunal Rules 1962 which is as follows:- “24. Where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent: Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal”. ITO v/s Chhitar Singh Bhikaji M.A. No.67/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2009-10 Page 4 of 4 6. Resultantly, this M/A is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 09.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore िदनांक / Dated : 09/06/2025 Dev/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "