Kewal Krishna Loroiya, Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer-I(2), Lucknow

MA 20/LKW/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Kewal Krishna Loroiya, who filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of a previous ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The application was filed significantly beyond the prescribed time limit, specifically 1595 days late. The assessee attempted to justify the delay on medical grounds, submitting a prescription dated 06.03.2023, which did not cover the entire period of delay. The ITAT, represented by Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava and Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, dismissed the application due to the lack of a legal provision allowing for the extension of the time limit for filing rectification applications under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123016 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE. HE DRAW OUR
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 20/Lkw/2020 [Arising out of ITA No.521/Lkw/2013] Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Kewal Krishna Loroiya, 5/3, Malviya Nagar, Aishbagh, Lucknow. PAN: ACTPL 1437B Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) This Miscellaneous Application (‘M.A.’ for short) has been filed by the appellant assessee seeking rectification of order dated 16.04.2015 of Coordinate Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’ for short), Lucknow in assessee’s case in ITA No. 521/Lkw/2013 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 (Kewal Krishna Loroiya vs. ITO). This present M.A. before us, which has been filed by the assessee on 04.03.2020, seeking rectification of aforesaid order dated 16.04.2015 of ITAT, is well beyond the prescribed time limit Appellant by None (Adj. Application) Respondent by Shri Amit Nigam, (DR) Date of hearing 09/06/2023 Date of pronouncement 21/06/2023 M.A. No.20/Lkw/2020 2 mentioned u/s. 254(2) of I.T. Act. As per noting of Registry, this M.A. is time barred by 1595 days. (A.1) The time limit for rectification of order of ITAT has been prescribed u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘I.T. Act’ for short), and is reproduced below for ready reference: “254(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub-section on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees.” (A.2) At the time of hearing before us, the assessee was represented by none. Revenue was represented by Mr. Amit Nigam, learned Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we heard the learned Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue. He draw our attention to the fact that this M.A. is barred by limitation, having regard to time limit prescribed u/s. 254(2) of I.T. Act. He urged us to dismiss the M.A. in limine, being barred by limitation. M.A. No.20/Lkw/2020 3 (A.2.1) Vide letter dated 08.06.2023, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing of this M.A., on medical ground, and has also enclosed prescription of King George’s Medical University, U.P., Lucknow (Gandhi Memorial & Associated Hospitals). The prescription is dated 06.03.2023. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay does not contain any explanation for delay upto 05.03.2023. (B) In any case, on perusal of Section 254 of I.T. Act, already reproduced in foregoing paragraph, we find that there is no provision for passing rectification order beyond the time limit prescribed u/s. 254(2) of the I.T. Act. While Section 253(5) of I.T. Act specifically contains provision for admission of an appeal and for permitting the filing of memorandum of cross objections after the expiry of limitation periods referred to in Section 253(3) and Section 253(4) respectively, if the delay is explained satisfactorily on the basis of sufficient cause; we find, on perusal of Section 254 of I.T. Act, that there is no provision for exceeding the time limit prescribed u/s. 254(2) of I.T. Act for rectification of an order passed by the ITAT. (B.1) In the present case, the assessee failed to even bring any mistake to the notice of ITAT within the time prescribed u/s.254 of I.T. Act. (B.2) We further find from perusal of Section 254(2) of I.T. Act; that Finance Act, 2016 was reduced time limit for rectification of earlier order of ITAT from ‘four years from date of order’ to ‘six months from M.A. No.20/Lkw/2020 4 the end of the month in which the order was passed’, with effect from 01.06.2016. (B.2.1) In view of foregoing and having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case before us, we dismiss the M.A. on the ground that it is barred by limitation. (C) In the result, M.A. filed by the assessee stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 21/06/2023) Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ( ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 21/06/2023 Aks Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar