MP Nos.61 & 62/Bang/2023 M/s. Khoday India Limited MP No.109/Bang/2023 Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. Nos.61 & 62/Bang/2023 ITA Nos.407 & 408/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 DCIT Central Circle-1(1) Bangalore Vs. M/s. Khoday India Limited 7 th Mile, Brewery House Doddakallasandra Post Kanakpura Road Bangalore 560 062 PAN NO : AAACK6734C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R. Respondent by : Shri Sridhar V., A.R. M.P. No.109/Bang/2023 ITA No.359/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 ADIT CPC Bangalore Vs. Shri Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar No.21 and 22, Autocrat Engineers Phase -1, Export Promotion Industrial Park Whitefield Bangalore 560 066 PAN NO : ABLPK6831H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R. Respondent by : Shri Kadapa Ramesh, A.R. MP Nos.61 & 62/Bang/2023 M/s. Khoday India Limited MP No.109/Bang/2023 Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 Date of Hearing : 16.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These Miscellaneous Applications (MA) at the instance of the Revenue are seeking to recall the orders of the ITAT in ITA No.407 & 408/Bang/2022 dated 19.07.2022 and ITA No.359/Bang/2021 dated 13.10.2021. 2. Admittedly, these MAs are filed beyond the period prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] as follows: MP No. Date of receipt of order by the Department Date of filing of MA 61 & 62/Bang/2023 17.10.2022 17.01.2023 109/Bang/2023 21.12.2021 30.01.2023 3. These MAs are filed belatedly beyond 6 months from the end of the month in which order was communicated to the respective parties. Hence, the Tribunal have no power u/s 254(2) of the Act to condone the delay since these MAs are filed beyond the time allowed under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. In holding so, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements: • A.S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. ACIT reported in (2018) 300 ITR 96 (Kar.) THE ma. • Arvindbhai H. Shah V. ACIT (2004) 91 ITD 101 (Ahd.)(SB) MP Nos.61 & 62/Bang/2023 M/s. Khoday India Limited MP No.109/Bang/2023 Gopalakrishna Aswini Kumar, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 • Ms. Shamsunissa Begum V. DCIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 96 (Bangalore Trib.) • Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd. V. ACIT (2009) 120 ITD 481 (Delhi) • ACIT Vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair (2010) 193 Taxman 28 (Cochin) (MAG) 3.1 In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, we reject the MAs filed by the revenue in limine. 4. In the result, the MAs filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16 th June, 2023 Sd/- (George George K. ) Judicial Member Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 16 th June, 2023. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.