ACIT, C-2(1), Chandigarh V. M/s Premier Electrical Industries, Chandigarh

MA 115/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6564 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPIKA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: AMRINDER SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 MA NO.115/CHD/2017 IN ITA NO.96/CHD/2015- M./S PAREMIER ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES, CHANDIGARH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 115/CHD/2017 (IN ITA NO. 96/CHD/2015) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) THE ACIT, VS. M/S PREMIER ELECTRICAL INDSUTRIES, CIRCLE 2(1), PLOT NO. 147-148, PHASE-1, CHANDIGARH INDUSTRIAL AREA, CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AABFP0329C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. DEEPIKA MOHAN, SR DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. AMRINDER SINGH, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 18.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.05.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION HAS BEEN PREFERRED B Y THE DEPARTMENT PLEADING THEREIN THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2016 OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO. 96/CHD/2015. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPLICATION MOVED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS TIME BARRED. HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS STATED THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 3.10.2016, WHEREAS, THE PRESENT M.A. HAS BEEN FILED ON 01.08.2017. THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 254(2) OF THE 2 MA NO.115/CHD/2017 IN ITA NO.96/CHD/2015- M./S PAREMIER ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES, CHANDIGARH INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), AS AMEND ED VIDE FINANCE ACT 2016 W.E.F. 1.6.2016, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE FI LED THE APPLICATION WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHIC H THE ORDER WAS PASSED. WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT M.A. HAS BEEN FIL ED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 01.08.2017, WHICH IS BARRED BY PERIOD OF ABOUT 335 DAYS. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE STATUTE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY F OR THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DE PARTMENT REQUIRES DISMISSAL BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. WE FIND THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPLICATION HAS NOT POINTED OUT A NY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, RATHER, THROUGH THIS APPLICATION, THE DEPAR TMENT WANTS TO RE-AGITATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND SEEKS FOR REVIEW OF THE ORD ER WHICH AS PER SETTLED LAW, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER OF REVIEW ITS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS M ISC. APPLICATION AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18.05.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR