Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore V. Sumeru IT Services, Bengaluru

MA 132/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), CPC, Bengaluru as the applicant and M/s. Sumeru IT Services as the respondent. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking to recall the orders of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 640 and 641/Bang/2021 dated 24.03.2022. However, these applications were filed beyond the statutory period allowed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, referencing several judicial pronouncements, concluded that it lacked the authority to condone the delay in filing these applications and thus dismissed them.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124614 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2022
• 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, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA Nos.131 and 132/Bang/2023 (in ITA Nos.640and 641/Bang/2021) Assessment Years: 2018-19and 2019-20 DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru. Vs. M/s. Sumeru IT Services, No.4, 4 th Cross, II Main, AECS I Stage, RMV II Stage, Sanjaynagar, Bengaluru – 560 094. PAN : ADTPN 3113 B APPLICANTRESPONDENT Revenue by:Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Assessee by :None Date of hearing:16.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement:16.06.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Judicial Member: These Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) at the instance of the Revenue is seeking to recall the orders of the ITAT in ITA Nos.640 and 641/Bang/2021, order dated 24.03.2022. 2. Admittedly, the MAs are 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.131 and 132/Bang/2023 (in ITA Nos.640 and 641/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 Member Judicial Member Bangalore. Dated: 16.06.2023. /NS/* MA No.131 and 132/Bang/2023 (in ITA Nos.640 and 641/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.