AI Insights
The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue seeking to recall an earlier order of the ITAT dated 21.02.2022 concerning M/s. Euro Hardware World for the assessment year 2019-20. 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.
Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125268 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
15-06-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Next Hearing Date
15-06-2023
Assessment Year
2019-2020
Appeal Filed On
08-12-2022
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE, SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.139/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.753/Bang/2021) Assessment Year : 2019-20 DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru. Vs. M/s. Euro Hardware World, 339/1 Ananth Ramaiah Wooden Factory Compound, Mysore Road Bapurji Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 026. PAN : AABEE 8950 H APPLICANTRESPONDENT Revenue by:Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, 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: This Miscellaneous Application (MA) at the instance of the Revenue is seeking to recall the order of the ITAT in ITA No.753/Bang/2021, order dated 21.02.2022. 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.139/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.753/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/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU)(GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore. Dated: 16.06.2023. /NS/* MA No.139/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.753/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.
