M/S AVTAR EXPORTS PVT.LTD,LUDHIANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2), LUDHIANA

MA 4/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Avtar Exports Pvt. Ltd., which filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of an earlier Tribunal order that dismissed their appeal due to non-appearance and was dismissed on limitation grounds. The assessee argued that the non-appearance was due to a lapse by their accountant and that they intended to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, leaving one assessment year unattended. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay vague and unsupported by material evidence, leading to the dismissal of the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841022 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Pradeep Kumar Jindal vs PCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR; C.A
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “ए” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Misc. Application No. 4/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 200/Chd/2020 ) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s Avtar Exports Pvt. Ltd. Kanganawal Road, VPO- Jugiana Ludhiana बनाम The ITO Ward 3(2) Ludhiana ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCA4125G अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, CA राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24/02/2026 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: The present Miscellaneous Application has been moved by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with proviso to Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 seeking recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 05.09.2022 whereby the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 2. The record shows that the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 200/Chd/2020 for A.Y. 2010-11 was fixed for hearing on 03.08.2022. Despite the service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record and the condonation application, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 05.09.2022 on limitation grounds. The order was duly served upon the assessee immediately thereafter. However, the present Miscellaneous Application has been filed only on 03.02.2025, i.e., after a delay of more than two years and five months. 3. The assessee has submitted that the non-appearance occurred due to a lapse on the part of the accountant and that the assessee intended to opt for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, but one assessment year remained unattended. It has been argued that Rule 24 permits recall of an ex parte order where sufficient cause is shown and that no specific limitation period is prescribed for such recall. Reliance Printed from counselvise.com 2 has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jindal vs PCIT. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Karnataka High Court and Bombay High Court whereby it has been categorically held that the Tribunal does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the Misc. Application. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record. The undisputed fact is that the Tribunal order dated 05.09.2022 was admittedly served upon the assessee, and yet the present application has been filed after more than two years and five months. The explanation furnished by the assessee is vague, general and unsupported by any material evidence. No day-to-day explanation has been provided explaining the inordinate delay. Once the order was received, the assessee was expected to act with reasonable promptitude and due diligence. The assessee's conduct clearly shows prolonged inaction and negligence in pursuing legal remedies. 5.1 It is further observed that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 254(2) is circumscribed by statutory limitation, and the Tribunal does not possess the power to condone delay beyond the permissible period prescribed for invoking recall/rectification jurisdiction. The present application, having been filed after more than two years and five months, falls beyond the permissible jurisdictional period and therefore cannot be entertained. 5.2 The contention of the assessee that Rule 24 does not prescribe a limitation is also misconceived. Absence of a specific limitation period does not imply that the remedy can be invoked at any indefinite point in time. The law requires the exercise of such a remedy within a reasonable period. Where an assessee, despite service of an order, remains inactive/oblivious for years, the application becomes barred by the doctrine of laches. In the present case, the delay of more than two years and five months cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as reasonable. 5.3 The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court is misplaced. In the said case, sufficient cause existed, and the delay stood properly explained, whereas in the present case, there is a complete absence of bona fide explanation, and the assessee has failed to establish any reasonable cause preventing appearance before the Tribunal. The facts are clearly distinguishable, and the ratio of the decision does not apply to a case involving prolonged unexplained inaction. Printed from counselvise.com 3 5.4 We also note that even in the original proceedings, the Tribunal had recorded the absence of a proper affidavit and a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. Even in the present application, no credible supporting material has been brought on record. The explanation now furnished appears to be an afterthought and does not inspire confidence. 5.5 Considering the inordinate and unexplained delay, absence of sufficient cause, lack of jurisdiction to condone such delay and the doctrine of laches, we hold that no ground exists for recalling the order dated 05.09.2022. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, Misc. Application filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/02/2026 Sd/- Sd/- मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल लिलत क ुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "