CPC, Bengalore V. Kay Jay Frogings Pvt Ltd, Punjab

MA 11/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9213 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV NARYAN; PANCHAM SETI
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “FRIDAY-G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.-11/Del/2023 [In ITA No.1244/Del/2021] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] CPC, Bangalore vs Kay Jay Frogings Pvt.Ltd., E-2, Ludhiana (East), Ludhiana, Punjab-141010. PAN-AAACK0878P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Sr.DR Respondent by Shri Sanjiv Naryan, CA & Shri Pancham Seti, CA Date of Hearing 13.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2024 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue seeking recalling of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1244/Del/2021 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18 order dated 17.05.2022 on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-1 in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016, dated 12.10.2022. The Revenue has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay. It is requested that the delay of 39 days in filing of Miscellaneous Application be condoned, and the order dated 17.05.2022 may be recalled. 2 | Page 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in respect of the Miscellaneous Application filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karturi Global Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2020) 116 Taxman.com 924. Further reliance is placed judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 359 ITR 371 (Bombay High Court). In sum and substance, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay, in respect of the Miscellaneous Application filed u/s 254(2) of the Act for rectification of the order. Before adverting on the merit of the application seeking recalling of the order, it is now necessary to decide the issue of limitation as raised by the assessee. 4. Under these facts, a specific query was raised to Ld. Departmental Representative regarding any other binding precedent by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and/or by the Hon’ble Apex Court in favour of Revenue and the powers of Tribunal for condoantion of delay covered in filing of M.A. 3 | Page 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative could not bring to our notice any such binding precedent. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karturi Global Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2020) 116 Taxman.com 924 (Kar) has held as under:- “11. Indisputably, the miscellaneous petition was filed with the delay of 497 days before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond 6 months, if so, the petitioner approaching this Court under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be held to be unjustifiable. The Division Bench of this Court in identical circumstances in the case of. Practice Strategic Communications India (P.) Ltd. v. CST ILR 2016 Kar. 4493 has held that remedy available to the assessee to seek for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period of limitation is only under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. In the circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be entertained.” 6. Therefore, respectfully following above binding precedent, we hold that the Miscellaneous Application as preferred by the Revenue is barred by time. Hence, the Miscellaneous Application No. 11/Del/2023 preferred by the Revenue is rejected being barred by time. However, it is clarified that the Revenue would be at liberty for seeking remedy as available under law. 4 | Page 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10 th January, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI