DCIT, New Delhi V. Pragati Power Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

MA 119/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1746 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 254(2)

Judgement Text

1 MA no. 119/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 119/Del/2019 ( In ITA No. 6191 & 6192//DEL/2014) [Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, Circle 14(1). New Delhi. PAN: AACCP 8035 F Vs M/s Pragati Power Corporation Ltd., Himadri, Rajghat Power House Office Complex, New Delhi. APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Atul Kumar Sharma, CA Department represented by Shri Saurabh Anand, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.03.2024 Date of pronouncement 07.06.2024 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: Heard and perused the record. 2. The present application is filed u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), by the Revenue with the factual matrix that when vide order dated 18.12.2017 ITA nos. 6191 & 6192/Del/2014 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively, were decided, the Bench had taken up 2 MA no. 119/Del/2019 the facts for A.Y. 2008-09 into consideration and disposed of ITA no. 6192/Del/2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 also on the same set of facts, while, in fact, the facts were different. 3. It was pointed out that in A.Y.2008-09 penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on account of interest addition, whereas penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10 was levied on account of ‘prior period expenses’. It is further coming up that Revenue had preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, where on 27.09.2018 it was withdrawn with liberty to bring these facts to the knowledge of the Tribunal and seek indulgence u/s 254(2) of the Act. At the time of filing of this application, an application u/s 151 of the CPC, for condonation of delay, was also filed. 4. Considering the fact that Hon’ble High Court had given permission for filing an application u/s 254(2) of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2018 and misc. application u/s 254(2) of the Act was filed on 20.02.2019, there is actually no delay and otherwise delay needs to be condoned as per liberty given by the Hon’ble High Court. 5. In the light of aforesaid, considering the submissions of learned DR about the facts of two different years being separate, applying findings of A.Y. 2008-09 mutatis mutandis in A.Y. 2009-10 is an error, apparent on record. Accordingly, Tribunal’s order dated 18.12.2017, in respect of ITA no. 6192/Del/2014 for A.Y. 3 MA no. 119/Del/2019 2009-10, is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. The registry is directed to list ITA no. 6192/Del/2014 for hearing in due course, after issuing notices of hearing to the respective parties. Misc. application stands allowed accordingly. Order pronounced in open court on 07.06.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI