ITO, WARD-2, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD V. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

MA 60/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Revenue against various assessees concerning the assessment orders passed under sections 143(3) read with section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was the alleged timeliness and procedural correctness of these orders. The Tribunal had previously set aside these orders due to them being time-barred, as they did not comply with the statutory timelines prescribed under section 153B. The Revenue's MAs sought to revisit this decision, arguing that the original orders were valid and correctly executed. However, the Tribunal upheld its earlier decision, dismissing the MAs and correcting minor typographical errors in the original judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633696 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Mohamed Meeran Shahul Hameed vs. State, M. Ramakishtaih and Company vs. State, Sanka Agencies vs. State, Kanu Bhai vs. State
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: D.ANAND
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 263; 153A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनु क ुमार गिरि, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./MA No.54 & 55 / Chny / 2025, धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2014-15 (ITA No.364 & 441/Chny/2019) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palakkad Vs M/s.Appu Traders, No.XI/118C,M.Pudur Main Road, Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [PAN: AATFA7119H] आयकर अपील सं./MA No.56 & 57 / Chny / 2025, धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 (ITA No.444 & 445/Chny/2019) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Palakkad Vs Smt.J.S.Nihar Banu, Prop. M/s. Alfas Traders No.3771465, M.Pudur Main Road, Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [PAN: AGIPN8752E] आयकर अपील सं./MA No.58, 59, 60 & 61 / Chny / 2025, धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 (ITA No.359, 360, 361 & 362/Chny/2019) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Palakkad Vs Shri M.Shahjahan, Prop. M/s. Madeena Traders No.VII/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 MAs 54 to 61/Chny/2025 Page - 2 - of 5 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [PAN: AIYPS1815P] अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Department by : Smt.Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : These MAs bearing MA Nos.54 to 61 have been filed by the Revenue requesting for recalling of the order in ITA nos. 364, 441, 444, 445, 359, 360, 361 & 362 / Chny / 2019 dated 25.10.2024. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience these MAs were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 2.0 The Ld. DR through a long drawn process of arguments, reiterated the arguments which were taken by the Revenue during the course of original hearings. It was submitted that there was no infirmity in the order of the Ld.AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C dated 31.12.2017 as far as limitation was concerned. The Ld. DR once again tried to take us to the entire controversy of “making of the order” vs service of the order upon the assessee. Reliance was placed upon judicial precedents in support of her contentions. 3.0 The Ld. Counsel for the appellant assessee countered the Revenue’s arguments by submitting that there is no mistake in the order which is amenable for correction u/s 254 (2) of the Act. It was argued that there is no mistake apparent from records which can now be corrected. MAs 54 to 61/Chny/2025 Page - 3 - of 5 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that after analysing peculiar facts of the facts, it was concluded that the assessment order dated 25.10.2024 was hit by the mischief of timelines prescribed for passing of order u/s 153C and thus was barred by limitation. We had concluded that “….15.0 In the above back ground we find that timelines prescribed in section 153B for completing assessments referred in section 153A and for which notices have been issued u/s 153C assumes utmost significance in the present controversy. As discussed above, the orders u/s 143(3) in respect of all the assessees in these appeals though allegedly passed on 31.12.2017 was actually served upon the impugned assessees, through speed post communication on 08.01.2017. It has also been noted that for an inexplicable and incomprehensible reason the order was handed over to postal authorities, for service upon the assesse, located some 140 KMs away from the office of the assessing officer. The arguments of the Ld. CIT DR regarding the same having some linkages to the non-transfer of PAN etc., have been found to be far from convincing and apparently having no connection with the ground realities. The argument of Ld. CIT DR about the technological compulsions and electronic restrictions are far from convincing as the full-fledged electronic online working of the department has seen the light of the day only since 2020 and in 2017 the orders were still passed in the offline mode. The Ld. AO on the date of passing of the order shown as 31.12.2017 had become functous officio and had no locus standi in the matter thereafter. The undisputed and admitted fact by the revenue of dispatching the order on 06.01.2017 and its consequent service upon the assesse on 08.01.2017 therefore lands the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C into the mischief of a time barred order. The judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohamed Meeran Shahul Hameed supra have been found to be distinguished in as much as in the said decision their Lordships have considered provisions of section 263 which mandates that an order should be “made” by the revisionary authority within the prescribed timelines. We have also noted that the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR viz of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.Ramakishtaih and company, of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sanka Agencies, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kanu Bhai as well as of Coordinate Benches of Delhi and Bangalore Tribunals are covering the subject in favour of the assessees in above appeals. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C dated 31.12.2017 in respect of all the above assessees in these appeals have been hit by the time limitations prescribed in section 153B are time barred and therefore deserved to be set aside. Accordingly, we hereby set aside all the assessment orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C dated 31.12.2017 of MAs 54 to 61/Chny/2025 Page - 4 - of 5 the Ld. AO and of the Ld. First Appellate Authority in respect of all the above assessees in these appeals. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in the impugned appeals are therefore dismissed and cross objections raised by the assesse are allowed…”. 5.0 After hearing the arguments of Revenue, we are of the considered view that, by way of the present MA, Revenue wants us to review our order dated 25.10.2024 and thus to subscribe to its erroneous line of thinking on this subject. Section 254(2) of the Act only provides an opportunity to contesting parties to bring to the knowledge of the tribunal any mistake, for correction, which is apparent from records. It does not allow for any decision making based upon any substantive analysis of the matter. We also find sufficient force in the arguments of Ld.AR that no mistake which is apparent from records has been pointed by the Revenue and that the present MA merely attempts to get the earlier decision dated 25.10.2024 revisited. Accordingly, the MA Nos.54 to 61 filed by the Revenue requesting for recalling of the order in ITA nos. 364, 441, 444, 445, 359, 360, 361 & 362 / Chny / 2019 dated 25.10.2024 stands dismissed. 6.0 At this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to couple of typographical errors that have inadvertently crept into our order. We have considered the impugned mistakes in the light of material on records and accordingly direct that on page 15 the date 06.01.2019 to be read as 06.01.2018, on page 30 the date 08.01.2017 to be read as 06.01.2018 and on page 31 the dates 06.01.2017 to be read as 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2017 to be read as 08.01.2018. MAs 54 to 61/Chny/2025 Page - 5 - of 5 7.0 In the result, the MAs filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 11th , June - 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार गिरि) (Manu Kumar Giri) न्यागिक सदस्य / Judicial Member (अमिताभ शुक्ला) (amitabh shukla) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 11th , June - 2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतिललपप अग्रेपिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Palakkad 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि/DR 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF "