ITO WARD 20(2)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. PUNEET JAYANTILAL JAIN, MUMBAI

MA 332/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 332/MUM/2025) filed by the Revenue seeking recall/rectification of an earlier order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28th October 2024, concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The application was dismissed on the grounds of being filed beyond the permissible time limit. The Revenue's application was delayed by 217 days, exceeding the six-month period allowed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which specifically does not provide for the condonation of delay in filing such applications. The Tribunal emphasized that it could not extend the statutory period as it was not granted such authority by the legislature.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838347 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI AFAQUI
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAPRAKASH SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA No.332/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 1200/MUM/2024) Assessment Years: 2017-18 ITO ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.304 3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr.SS Rao Marg Parel, Mumbai-400015 Vs. Puneet Jayantilal Jain B-710 Shankeshwar Darshan Brahmanwadi Seth Motisha Lane Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010 PAN NO.AERPJ5451M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Satyaprakash Singh Department by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 19/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue is seeking recall/rectification of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) dated 28th October, 2024 passed in ITA No.1200/MUM/2024 for Assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the threshold, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee raised a fundamental objection regarding the maintainability of this application. It was submitted that the present application Printed from counselvise.com Puneet Jayantilal Jain 2 MA No. 332/MUM/2025 has been preferred with a delay exceeding 217 days beyond the prescribed statutory period. The Assessee contends that Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is a self-contained provision regarding limitation and does not vest this Tribunal with the power to condone delays, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. 3. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue of the maintainability of the present Miscellaneous Application. 4. A perusal of Section 253(3) of the Act reveals that while a standard period of 60 days is prescribed for filing appeals, Section 253(5) specifically empowers the Tribunal to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period if \"sufficient cause\" is demonstrated. In stark contrast, Section 254(2) provides that the Tribunal may amend any order passed by it with a view to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record, provided such amendment is made within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. Unlike Section 253(5), Section 254(2) does not contain a proviso or a corresponding sub- section authorizing the Tribunal to extend this six-month window or condone a delay in filing a Miscellaneous Application. It is a settled principle of legal interpretation that where the legislature specifically provides for the condonation of delay in one section (Section 253) but omits it in another (Section 254), such omission is deemed deliberate. The Tribunal, being a creature of the statute, cannot go beyond the express mandate of the law to exercise powers of condonation that have not been explicitly Printed from counselvise.com Puneet Jayantilal Jain 3 MA No. 332/MUM/2025 conferred upon it. Thus, any Miscellaneous Application filed beyond the period of the six months from the end of the month in which order of the Tribunal is passed, is not maintainable. 5. In the instant case, the order of the Tribunal was passed on 28th October, 2024 and came to knowledge of the Revenue on said date, therefore, the period of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Tribunal was passed, expired on 30th April, 2025, whereas this present Miscellaneous Application has been filed on 3rd December, 2025. 6. The application having been filed significantly beyond the non-extendable period of six months, we hold that this Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the same on merits. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed as time-barred and non-maintainable. 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 19/02/2026 Ankit, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com Puneet Jayantilal Jain 4 MA No. 332/MUM/2025 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "