M/S.RAJAN JEWELLERY,MUVATTUPUZHA V. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

MA 50/COCH/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Rajan Jewellary, the applicant, who filed miscellaneous applications seeking rectification and recall of orders previously passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin. These orders pertained to assessment years 2003-04 to 2009-10. The applications were filed on 21.06.2017, which was beyond the four-year limit set by section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act for filing such applications. The Tribunal dismissed the applications on the grounds of being time-barred and also on the merits, as the applications essentially sought a review of the Tribunal's earlier decisions, which is not allowed under the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782123 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM MA Nos. 45 to 50/Coch/2017 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 367 to 372/Coch/2012) (Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2009-10) MA No. 56/Coch/2016 (Arising out of ITA No. 366/Coch/2012) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) Rajan Jewellary .......... Applicant Kacherithazham, Muvattupuzha [PAN: AABFR9475P] Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kottayam .......... Respondent Applicant by: Respondent by: Date of Hearing: 08.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.10.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM The present miscellaneous applications are filed by the assessee seeking rectification and recall of the orders passed by this Tribunal on 24.05.2013 in ITA Nos. 366 to 372/Coch/2012 for assessment years 2003-04 to 2009-10 on the grounds mentioned therein. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No. 49/Coch/2017 Rajan Jewellary 2. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that the impugned orders were passed by the Tribunal on 24.05.2013. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 254, as they stood at the relevant point of time, provided that an application u/s. 254(2) was required to be made within a period of 4 years from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal. In the present case the Tribunal has passed the order on 24.05.2013. Therefore, the application u/s. 254(2) should have been made on or before 23.05.2017, whereas the present miscellaneous applications were filed by the appellant on 21.06.2017. Thus, the present miscellaneous applications filed u/s. 254(2) were barred by limitation. No power was vested with the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the petition u/s. 254(2) of the Act. In the absence of express power conferred on the Tribunal to condone the delay, the applications are dismissed as barred by limitation. 3. Even on merits, on careful perusal of the averments made in the miscellaneous applications, it would be evident that the assessee is only seeking recall and rectification of the orders on several grounds and placing reliance on certain judicial precedents. Thus, it is clear that the assessee is only seeking review of the order passed by this Tribunal, which is not permissible while exercise of the powers conferred on the Tribunal u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No. 49/Coch/2017 Rajan Jewellary 3. In the result, the assessee’s miscellaneous applications stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the conclusion of the hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 27th October, 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 Printed from counselvise.com "