M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM V. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

MA 30/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., which filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking recall of an earlier Tribunal order. The applications were filed significantly later than the statutory period allowed for such actions, specifically 1225 days delayed. The Tribunal examined whether it had the authority to condone this delay under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After reviewing relevant legal precedents and statutory provisions, the Tribunal concluded that it did not possess the power to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31221 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Nityananda M. Joshi vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, CIT vs. Western India Engineering Co. Ltd., Comm. of Agrl. I.T. vs. Thalayar Rubber Industries, Insp. Asst CIT vs. Kedar Nath Jhunjhunwalla
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation
• Section: 254(2); 69; 20

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JM MA Nos. 30 & 31/Coch/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 93 & 141/Coch/2018/19) Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2013-14 Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. .......... Applicant Peroorkada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695005 [PAN: AAAAP3974B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2(1), Thiruvananthapuram Applicant by: Ms. Swathy, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 03.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This Miscellaneous Application (MA) is filed by the assessee co-operative society seeking recall of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 26.06.2019 in ITA No. 141/Coch/2019 and ITA No. 93/Coch/2018 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 & 2013-14 on the ground that the order was passed by the Tribunal without taking into consideration certain facts and contrary to certain judicial precedents. 2. At the outset we find that the miscellaneous applications are filed before us with a delay of 1225 days. In terms of provisions of 2 MA Nos. 30 & 31/Coch/2023 Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Tribunal was vested with the power to rectify any mistake apparent from the record or amend any order passed by it under the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act, if such mistakes are brought to the notice of the Tribunal either by the assessee or by the Department within the period of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Tribunal is passed. Now, it is a settled position of law that the term \"six\" months from the end of the month in which the order was passed had been interpreted to mean that six months from the end of the month in which the order was received by the assessee or by the Assessing Officer/Department, as the case may be. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had received the impugned order of the Tribunal on 07.07.2017, therefore, the Assessing Officer is required to move application u/s 254(2) of the Act on or before 31.01.2018, whereas, the assessee filed the above captioned Miscellaneous Application before this Tribunal on 30.09.2019. Thus, there is a delay of more than 20 months. Therefore, the question to be answered is that whether the Tribunal, while exercising the power vested under the provisions of section 254(2) can condone the delay occurred in filing the Miscellaneous Application. A mere perusal of provisions of section 254(2), it would reveal that the Legislature has not vested the Tribunal with the power to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application/Rectification Application u/s 254(2) of the Act. The scheme of the Act would disclose that the Legislature had deliberately excluded the application of the principles underlying 3 MA Nos. 30 & 31/Coch/2023 Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act in relation to the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Legislature had vested the power to condonation of delay in relation to the provisions of section 249 and section 254 of the act. Thus, the very fact that the Legislature had provided for a power to condonation of delay in relation to the provisions of section 249 and section 254 of the Act shows that the Legislature had consciously excluded the power of Tribunal to condone the delay in relation to the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. In this connection, we would like reference to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nityananda M. Joshi vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1970 SC 209 held that in view of section 4 & 5 of the Limitation Act, it would be clear that the scheme of the Act is that it only deals with applications to courts and the Labour Court is not a court within the meaning of the Limitation Act, and, therefore, an application u/s 33C(2) cannot be held to be barred under Article 137, insofar as the claim was for a period beyond three years. 3. It is settled position of law that in the absence of any statutory provisions, no power exists in the authority to condone the delay. It is also equally settled position of law that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act have not application to the proceedings before the Tribunal. In the case of CIT vs. Western India Engineering Co. Ltd., 77 ITR 165, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not a court but is merely a tribunal 4 MA Nos. 30 & 31/Coch/2023 Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. exercising the judicial power of the State. As the provisions of the Limitation Act are not intended to be made applicable to proceedings before authorities other than courts governed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, will not apply to applications made to the Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal has no power to condone delay in filing reference application under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. In Comm. of Agrl. I.T. vs. Thalayar Rubber Industries, 131 ITR 162 a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has held that Section 69 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, indicates that provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are not attracted to proceedings under the Act and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an application for reference under Section 60(1) of the said Act. 5. In Insp. Asst CIT vs. Kedar Nath Jhunjhunwalla, 133 ITR 746 a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Patna High Court has held that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act will apply to appeals and applications filed under a special law only where the scheme of the special law does not exclude its application. Neither the provision of Section 5 nor that of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act will apply to appeals filed under Section 269H of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\\ 6. On the conspectus of the decisions referred to above and the their ratios, it would be clear that the Tribunal constituted under the 5 MA Nos. 30 & 31/Coch/2023 Peroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not a Court but a Tribunal unless there is express power conferred by the said Act to condone the delay or exclude any period of limitation, the Tribunal would not be clothed with the power to condone the delay. In the light of above settled legal position, the submissions of the learned A.R. that the delay in moving the Miscellaneous Petitions can be condoned by the Tribunal is rejected. 7. Thus, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) are barred by limitation, cannot be entertained. 8. In the result, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 19th February, 2025 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin "