The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore V. Sri, Ramachandra Naveen, Bangalore

MA 37/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed by the Revenue seeking to recall an order of the ITAT dated 07.02.2022. The application was found to be beyond the prescribed time limit for filing under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, referencing a High Court judgment, concluded that it lacked the authority to condone the delay in filing the MA, leading to the dismissal of the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124548 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2022
• Other Referred Cases: A. S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. ACIT (2018) 300 ITR 96 (Kar.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HITHA MARADI
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.37/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.710/Bang/2021) Assessment Year : 2019-20 ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru. Vs. Shri. Ramachandra Naveen, No.4140, Sam Chambers, 80 Feet Road, Girinagar, 4 th Phase, Bengaluru – 560 085. PAN : ACVPN 6688 E APPLICANTRESPONDENT Revenue by:Shri Bipin C N, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Assessee by :Ms. Hitha Maradi, Advocate. Date of hearing:26.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement:26.05.2023 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.710/Bang/2021 dated 07.02.2022. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the MA is filed beyond the prescribed period mentioned under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal does not have power to condone the delay in filing belated the MA. In this context, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in MA No.37/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.710/Bang/2021) Page 2 of 2 the case of A. S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. ACIT reported in (2018) 300 ITR 96 (Kar.). 3. 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/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore. Dated: 26.05.2023. /NS/* Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.CIT4.CIT(A) 5.DR, ITAT, Bangalore.6.Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.