ITO-WARD-3, YAMUNA NAGAR V. SHRI RAJA RAM, YAMUNA NAGAR

MA 15/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (revenue) seeking to recall a Tribunal order that had previously deleted disallowances made for late payments towards EPF & ESI by the respondent, Shri Raja Ram. The revenue's request for recall was based on a new Supreme Court decision and amendments to the Income Tax Act, which they argued supported their position. However, the Tribunal found the applications to be time-barred, referencing a decision by the Bombay High Court which held that there is no provision for condonation of delay beyond six months in section 254 of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783549 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs. CIT, Ram Baburao Salve
• Laws Referred To: Section 254(2), Section 36(1)(va), Section 43B
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: VIBHOR GARG LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. M.A. No.14/Chd/2025 [In ITA No.191/Chd/2021] (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. M.A. No.15/Chd/2025 [In ITA No.192/Chd/2021] (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) ITO Ward 3 Yamuna Nagar Sec-17, HUDA, Jagadhari – 135001 बनाम/ Vs. Shri Raja Ram 292, Krishna Colony Old Hamida, Yamuna Nagar 135001 ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AFSPR-8742-K (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Vibhor Garg (CA) – Ld. AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 31-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-11-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of these twin applications u/s 254(2), the revenue seeks my indulgence in Tribunal order passed in captioned appeals on 20-10-2021. The bench, in its order, deleted the disallowance made by revenue u/s 36(1)(va) for late payments towards EPF & ESI. The revenue seek recall of the order in terms of subsequent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Printed from counselvise.com 2 P. Ltd Vs. CIT (2022) 143 Taxmann.com 178 (SC) deciding this issue in favor of the revenue. The revenue also relies on the amendment brought into Sec. 36(1)(va) and Sec.43B w.e.f. 01-04- 2021. However, the undisputed position that emerges is that the applications have been preferred with a delay of 247 days. The revenue seeks condonation of the same on the ground that the decision which is being relied upon has been rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court on 12-10-2022 and the present application has been preferred within six months from this date. On the other hand, Ld. AR has opposed any interference in Tribunal orders on the ground that firstly, there is no mistake which is apparent from record and secondly, the provisions of Sec. 254(2) do not allow for condonation of delay as canvassed by revenue and therefore, the applications are not maintainable. 2. Undisputedly, the present applications have been filed with a delay. Considering the provisions of Sec. 254(2) which mandate a period of 6 months for such indulgence, these twin applications are to be rejected. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ram Baburao Salve (162 Taxmann.com 354) has held that there is no provision in Section 254 or any other section which provides for condonation of delay beyond six months. The substantive adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - 5. We should note that Section 254 of the Act reads as under: Orders of Appellate Tribunal. \"254. (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit (1A) xxxxxx (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 Printed from counselvise.com 3 such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub-section on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees. (2A) In every appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed under sub-section (1) [or sub-section (2)] of section 253: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, after considering the merits of the application made by the assessee, pass an order of stay in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under subsection (1) of section 253, for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of such order subject to the condition that the assessee deposits not less than twenty percent of the amount of tax, interest, fee, penalty, or any other sum payable under the provisions of this Act, or furnishes security of equal amount in respect thereof and the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within the said period of stay specified in that order; Provided further that no extension of stay shall be granted by the Appellate Tribunal, where such appeal is not so disposed of within the said period of stay as specified in the order of stay, unless the assessee makes an application and has complied with the condition referred to in the first proviso and the Appellate Tribunal is satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, so however, that the aggregate of the period of stay originally allowed and the period of stay so extended shall not exceed three hundred and sixty-five days and the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within the period or periods of stay so extended or allowed: Provided also that if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period allowed under the first proviso or the period or periods extended or allowed under the second proviso, which shall not, in any case, exceed three hundred and sixty-five days, the order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of such period or periods, even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. (2B) The cost of any appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be at the discretion of that Tribunal.\" There is no provision in Section 254 or any other section which provides for condonation of delay beyond six months. 6. In the circumstances, for reasons recorded by us in the order dated 3rd April 2024 in Interim Application (L) No.33513 of 2023 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 33146 of 2023, of the same Petitioner, even on merits of the delay, no sufficient cause is shown for the delay. We have observed Petitioner was not only negligent but also lacked bonafides. Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Printed from counselvise.com 4 Respectfully following the same, I would hold that the present applications are not maintainable, being time barred u/s 254(2). 3. In the result, both the applications stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 03rd November, 2025. Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03-11-2025 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH Printed from counselvise.com "