Smt. Minaz Khalid Begawala, Mahrashtra V. ITO,Ward-2, Bharuch

MA 1/SRT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Minaz Khalid Begawala, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification or recall of an earlier Tribunal order that dismissed her appeal due to delay. The Tribunal had previously dismissed her appeal on 05/09/2022, citing the absence of sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee contended that there was a mistake apparent in the Tribunal's earlier order, which warranted a recall. However, the Tribunal found no such mistake and noted the casual manner in which both the original appeal and the current application were handled. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had multiple opportunities to present her case but failed to do so adequately.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302201 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 01/Srt/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 1634/Ahd/2017) (Assessment Year: 2010-11) (Physical hearing) Smt. Minaz Khalid Begawala, 1101, Acropolis Tower, Sector-6, Plot No. 28, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra. PAN No. ABWPJ 8597 J Vs. I.T.O., Ward-2, Bharuch. Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Jigar Adhyapu, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Date of hearing 17/03/2023 Date of pronouncement 17/03/2023 Order under section 254(2) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This Miscellaneous Applications (MA) is filed by the assessee for seeking rectification/recalling of order of this Tribunal dated 05/09/2022 passed in ITA No. 1634/Ahd/2017 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. 2. The assessee in her MA interalia contended that “On 10 th October, 2018 the appellant has received order of the AO, giving appeal effect to the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Surat Bench, mentioning the fact that the appeal before your honour has been dismissed.” The applicant further stated that delay in filing the appeal was beyond the control of assessee and her authorised representative and the assessee filed application for condonation of delay with the appeal. MA No.01/SRT/2023 Smt. Minaz Khalid Begawala Vs ITO 2 3. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the order may be recalled as there is mistake apparent in the order in the light of section 254(2) and the assessee may be given one more opportunity to contest the case before the Tribunal. 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the revenue submit that there is no mistake apparent in the order dated 05/09/2022, which can be classified mistake apparent within the scope of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). This Misc. application is drafted in a casual manner. The order was passed on 05/09/2022 in dismissing the appeal as the appeal of the assessee was not filed within prescribed period of limitation. The application filed with the appeal for condonation of delay, was not allowed by the Tribunal. The order is well reasoned and there is no scope for pointing out any mistake in it. Strangely, the assessee has pleaded that order of Assessing Office was received on 10/10/2018 in giving the order effect to the order of Tribunal, no such copy of order/ letter is filed with the present application. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee was given more than eight opportunities of hearing, neither the assessee nor her representative ever attended or ever filed application for seeking adjournment, despite the services of notices of hearing. MA No.01/SRT/2023 Smt. Minaz Khalid Begawala Vs ITO 3 In fact, there is no mistake apparent in the order dated 05/09/2022. If the assessee has any grievance, may file appeal before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as the order is appealable one, as the application of assessee for condonation of delay was dismissed. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal on 04/07/2017. The appeal of assessee, for the first time fixed for hearing on 01/03/2021. Notice of hearing of appeal was served on more than three occasions i.e. for the hearing fixed on 19/04/2021, again on 01/11/2021 and finally 05/09/2022. The AD card of the notice for date of hearing on 05/12/2022 is also available on record. Moreover, the appeal was listed on more than ten occasions. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite the service of notice through registered post nor any application for adjournment was even filed. Ultimately, the submission of ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue was heard on 05/09/2022 and the appeal of assessee was adjudicated vide order dated 05/09/2022. While adjudicating of the appeal, the bench has given clear finding that the application of condonation of delay is neither signed by the assesse nor supported with affidavit, no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in such application was shown. The application for MA No.01/SRT/2023 Smt. Minaz Khalid Begawala Vs ITO 4 condonation of delay was filed in a casual manner. Further the present Misc. application is also filed in a casual manner. The applicant/assessee has nowhere disclosed as to why no proper application for condonation of delay was filed or as to why the ld. authorised representative of the assessee has not appeared on the date fixed for hearing of appeal/application for condoning the delay. The ld. AR of the assessee failed to show any mistake in the order which can be considered as mistake apparent on the record within the meaning of scope of application under Section 254(2) of the Act, except making prayer to give one more opportunity. Further, present application is also drafted in a casual manner, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed being unadmitted on 05.09.202, however, in the first para of the application, the assessee has contended that “on 10 th October,2018, the applicant has received order of AO, giving effect to the order of Hon’ble ITAT, Surat bench, mentioning the fact that the appeal before your honour has been dismissed.” We find that the assessee as well as her AR is casual in drafting the application, the appeal was dismissed only on 05.09.2022. As per official record the copy of order dated 05.09.2022 was released to the assessee only on 03.12.2022. Thus, we do not find any merit in this Misc. application of the assessee filed under Section 254(2) of the Act which we dismiss the same. MA No.01/SRT/2023 Smt. Minaz Khalid Begawala Vs ITO 5 6. In the result, this Misc. application of assessee is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order was pronounced in the open court in the present of parties, on 17 th March, 2023 at the time of hearing itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 17/03/2023 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By order / / TRUE COPY / / Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Surat