Deputy Commissioner Of Income tax, CIrcle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru V. M/s. Methods (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru

MA 124/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue seeking to recall an earlier order of the ITAT in ITA No.626/Bang/2021 dated 23.12.2021. The application was filed beyond the statutory period allowed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, referencing several judicial precedents, concluded that it did not have the authority to condone the delay in filing the MA and thus dismissed the application in limine, meaning it was rejected at the outset without further consideration of its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299870 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: A. S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. ACIT, Arvindbhai H. Shah Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ms. Shamsunissa Begum Vs. DCIT, Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 2; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT MA No.124/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.626/Bang/2021) Assessment Year : 2019-20 DCIT, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. Vs. M/s. Methods (India) Private Limited, #4A, KIADB Industrial Area, Hosakote Bengaluru – 562 114. PAN : AABCM 8680 N APPLICANTRESPONDENT Revenue by:Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department. Assessee by :Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA Date of hearing:07.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement:07.07.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This Miscellaneous Application (MA) at the instance of the Revenue is seeking to recall the order of the ITAT in ITA No.626/Bang/2021, order dated 23.12.2021. 2. Admittedly, the MA is filed beyond the period prescribed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). The Tribunal does not have power to condone the delay when the MA is filed belatedly under section 254(2) of the Act. In holding so, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements: MA No.124/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.626/Bang/2021) Page 2 of 3 A. S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. ACIT reported in (2018) 300 ITR 96 (Kar.) the MA. Arvindbhai H. Shah Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2004] 91 ITD 101 (Ahd.)(SB) Ms. Shamsunissa Begum Vs. DCIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 96 (Bangalore – Trib.) Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [2009] 120 ITD 481 (Delhi) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair [2010] 193 Taxman 28 (Cochin) (MAG) 3. In light of the above judicial pronouncements, we reject the MA filed by the Revenue in limine. 4. In the result, the MA filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 07.07.2023. /NS/* MA No.124/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.626/Bang/2021) Page 3 of 3 Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.CIT4.CIT(A) 5.DR, ITAT, Bangalore.6.Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.