ITO WARD 8(1), NEW DELHI V. M/S. SHAAN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

MA 544/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) filing a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) seeking rectification of a previous order concerning the deletion of a penalty of INR 16.83 lakhs under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This penalty was initially deleted by the ITAT in a prior ruling. The Revenue's M.A. was based on the grounds that there was a mistake in the earlier order. However, the ITAT held that the M.A. under section 254(2) was not permissible against an order already passed under section 254(2). The court referenced various judicial precedents to support its decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31740 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT vs Smt. Alpana Bhartia [2019] 106 taxmann.com 397 (Karnataka)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY WADHWA
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 254(2); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “ BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, M.A.NO. [In ITA No. [Assessment Year : 20 ITO, Ward-8(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA The Revenue has moved of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] dated 24.06.2019 arising in ITA No.613/Del/2013 dated 20.02.2018 passed u/s 254(1) of the Act. 2. As per M.A., the assessee has by the Tribunal while passing M.A. order dated 22.10.2018 filed by the assessee in connection with ITA No.613/Del/2013 where penalty 16.83 lakhs u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the M.A. filed on behalf of the Revenue. As transpired in the course the present M.A seeking rectification of the ord u/s 254(2) of the Act in M.A. No.535/Del/2018. Apparently, this is ot permissible. The M.A. u/s 254(2) of the Act already passed u/s 254(2) of the Act. It is only an order passed u/s 254(1) of the Act which can be subject matter of rectification IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G-FRIDAY” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.-544/Del/2019 ITA No.613/Del/2013] [Assessment Year : 2006-07] vs M/s. Shaan Construction Pvt.Ltd., D-5/6, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020. PAN-AABCS3688Q RESPONDENT Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Ajay Wadhwa, CA Date of Hearing 08.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 08.11.2024 ORDER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The Revenue has moved a Miscellaneous Application (“M.A.”) u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] dated 24.06.2019 arising in ITA 20.02.2018 passed u/s 254(1) of the Act. As per M.A., the assessee has sought rectification of mistake while passing M.A. order dated 22.10.2018 filed by the assessee in connection with ITA No.613/Del/2013 where penalty 16.83 lakhs u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted. We have heard rival submissions and perused the M.A. filed on behalf of . As transpired in the course of hearing, the Revenue has moved the present M.A seeking rectification of the order previously passed by ITAT u/s 254(2) of the Act in M.A. No.535/Del/2018. Apparently, this is ot permissible. The M.A. u/s 254(2) of the Act does not lie against the order already passed u/s 254(2) of the Act. It is only an order passed u/s 254(1) of the Act which can be subject matter of rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act. This BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Shaan Construction 5/6, Okhla Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR Miscellaneous Application (“M.A.”) u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] dated 24.06.2019 arising in ITA 20.02.2018 passed u/s 254(1) of the Act. rectification of mistake committed while passing M.A. order dated 22.10.2018 filed by the assessee in connection with ITA No.613/Del/2013 where penalty levied of INR We have heard rival submissions and perused the M.A. filed on behalf of of hearing, the Revenue has moved er previously passed by ITAT u/s 254(2) of the Act in M.A. No.535/Del/2018. Apparently, this is ot against the order already passed u/s 254(2) of the Act. It is only an order passed u/s 254(1) of u/s 254(2) of the Act. This view is supportable the pla precedents including the taxmann.com 397 (Karnataka) assessee. 4. In the result, the M.A. filed by the Revenue is dismissed in Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT M.A.N view is supportable the plain language of the Act as well as various judicial precedents including the Pr. CIT vs Smt. Alpana Bhartia [2019] 106 taxmann.com 397 (Karnataka) and other judgements cited on behalf of the M.A. filed by the Revenue is dismissed in limine Order pronounced in the open Court on 08th November, 202 Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI M.A.No.-544/Del/2019 Page | 2 n language of the Act as well as various judicial na Bhartia [2019] 106 and other judgements cited on behalf of the limine. , 2024. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "