MP Nos.142 & 143/Bang/2023 Ikon Labels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore MP No.144/Bang/2023 M/s. Puyuast Maritime India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. Nos.142 & 143/Bang/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.49/Bang/2022 & ITA No.658/Bang/2021) Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 ADIT CPC Bangalore Vs. Ikon Labels Pvt. Ltd. #304 Chicago Avenue 37/2, Cunningham Road Bengaluru 560 052 PAN NO : AABCI0953Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Supriya Rao, D.R. Respondent by : Shri R.K. Ganeriwala, A.R. M.P. No.144/Bang/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.30/Bang/2022) Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT Circle-3(1)(1) Bangalore Vs. M/s. Puyuast Maritime India Pvt. Ltd. 6, Harris Road Benson Town Bangalore 560 046 PAN NO : AABCP2357D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Supriya Rao, D.R. Respondent by : Shri Rajgopal, A.R. MP Nos.142 & 143/Bang/2023 Ikon Labels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore MP No.144/Bang/2023 M/s. Puyuast Maritime India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 3 Date of Hearing : 23.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These Miscellaneous Applications (MA) at the instance of the Revenue are seeking to recall the orders of the ITAT in ITA Nos.49/Bang/2022 dated 14.3.2022, 658/Bang/2021 dated 30.3.2022 and ITA No.30/Bang/2022 dated 8.3.2022. 2. Admittedly, these MAs are filed beyond the period prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] as follows: MP No. Date of receipt of order by the Department Date of filing of MA 142/Bang/2023 04.04.2022 09.12.2022 143/Bang/2023 25.04.2022 13.12.2022 144/Bang/2023 04.04.2022 03.12.2022 3. These MAs are filed belatedly beyond 6 months from the end of the month in which order was communicated to the respective parties. Hence, the Tribunal have no power u/s 254(2) of the Act to condone the delay since these MAs are filed beyond the time allowed under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. In holding so, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements: • A.S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. ACIT reported in (2018) 300 ITR 96 (Kar.) THE ma. • Arvindbhai H. Shah V. ACIT (2004) 91 ITD 101 (Ahd.)(SB) • Ms. Shamsunissa Begum V. DCIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 96 (Bangalore Trib.) MP Nos.142 & 143/Bang/2023 Ikon Labels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore MP No.144/Bang/2023 M/s. Puyuast Maritime India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 3 of 3 • Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd. V. ACIT (2009) 120 ITD 481 (Delhi) • ACIT Vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair (2010) 193 Taxman 28 (Cochin) (MAG) 3.1 In the 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. Order pronounced in the open court on 23 rd June, 2023 Sd/- (Beena Pillai) Judicial Member Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 23 rd June, 2023. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.