ITO WRAD 1 (3), NEW DELHI V. ADITYA ANTIBIOTICS PVT. LTD., DELHI

MA 168/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer (ITO) as the appellant and Aditya Antibiotics Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent. The ITO filed Miscellaneous Applications (M.As) against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had previously remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Tribunal had earlier dismissed an M.A filed by the assessee, mistakenly affirming the order of the CIT(A), which was later corrected as a typographical error. The Revenue sought to rectify this error through the current M.As. However, the Tribunal dismissed these applications due to the significant delay in filing, stating that it had no authority to condone such delays under the relevant section of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792934 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"1 M.A Nos. 167 & 168/Del/2025 ITO Vs. Aditya Antibiotics Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M. A NO. 167/DEL/2025 (A.Y 2006-07) (in M.A No. 436/DEL/2023) M. A NO. 168/DEL/2025 (A.Y 2007-08) (in M.A No. 437/DEL/2023) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), New Delhi (APPELLANT) vs Aditya Antibiotics Pvt. Ltd. B-5, 2nd Floor, Madhuban, New Delhi-110092 Delhi PAN-AADCA6593L (RESPONDENT)) Applicant by Shri Pratap Gupta, Adv Respondent by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The above mentioned Miscellaneous Applications are filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) in respect of the order dated 19/06/2024 passed by the Tribunal in M. A NO. 436/DEL/2023for Assessment Year 2006-07 and M. A NO. 437/DEL/2023for A.Y 2007-08. 2. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that in the Final Order dated 30/08/2023 passed in ITA No. 3264 and 3265/Del/2016, the Tribunal after analysing the facts, remanded the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. However, the Tribunal vide its order dated 09/06/2024,while dismissing the M.A No. filed by the Assessee for recalling the order final order made in ITA Date of Hearing 19.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A Nos. 167 & 168/Del/2025 ITO Vs. Aditya Antibiotics Pvt. Ltd. No. 3264/Del/2016 and 3265/Del/2016, erroneously mentioned that ‘we hereby clarified that order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed’. Further submitted that, at no point of time the Tribunal in the M.A Nos. 436/DEL/2023and 437/DEL/2023entertained the application or dealt with issue on merits, on the other hand the Tribunal dismissed the M.As. Therefore, the said sentence in the last para of Para 5 of the order i.e.‘we hereby clarified that order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed’ has been erroneously typed/retained which is nothing but a typographical error. Thus, the Ld. Departmental Representative sought for allowing the M.As. 3. Per contra, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay in filing the present Applications, therefore, the M.As filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. 4. We have heard the parties perused the material. The Ld. DR vehemently argued and demonstrated before us regarding error apparent from record in in the Para 5 of the order of the Tribunalin M.A No. 436 /Del/2023 and 437/Del/2023dated 10/05/2024 in mentioning‘we hereby clarified that order of the Ld. CIT(A) is affirmed’. However, as the present MAs have been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 254 (2) of the Act and there is a delay of 143 days in filing the M.As, therefore, we have to decide on the issue of limitation. Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A Nos. 167 & 168/Del/2025 ITO Vs. Aditya Antibiotics Pvt. Ltd. 5. The Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application. As there is a delay of 143 days in filing the captioned M.As., we have no option but to dismiss the M.A for delay in latches. Accordingly M.As filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24/09/2025 R.N, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "