Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore V. Megha Services Private Limited, Bijapur

MA 130/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), CPC, Bengaluru as the applicant and M/s. Megha Services Private Limited as the respondent. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking to recall an earlier ITAT order dated 09.12.2021 concerning the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The Tribunal found that the MAs were filed beyond the allowable period as stipulated under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus dismissed the applications without considering the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124567 (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 “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA Nos.129 and 130/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.551,552/Bang/2021) Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru. Vs. M/s. Megha services Private Limited, Plot No.659, Kirti Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 101. PAN : AAKCM 0137 F APPLICANTRESPONDENT Revenue by:Shri.Nischal B, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Assessee by :Shri. Madhukeshwara Hegde, CA Date of hearing:07.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement:07.07.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: These Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) at the instance of the Revenue is seeking to recall the order of the ITAT in ITA Nos.551, 552/Bang/2021, order dated 09.12.2021. 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 Nos.129, 130/Bang/2023 (in ITA Nos.551,552/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 MAs filed by the Revenue in limine. 4.In the result, the MAs filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant MemberVice President Bangalore. Dated: 07.07.2023. /NS/* MA Nos.129, 130/Bang/2023 (in ITA Nos.551,552/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.