Shri Rashmin Ramniklal Vora, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Ahmedabad

MA 48/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rashmin Ramniklal Vora, the appellant, who sought to recall an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 18.6.2019 concerning the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appellant argued that the ITAT's earlier decision misinterpreted the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT, West vs Rajendra Prasad Moody, Calcutta, which affected the subsequent assessment year 2015-16. The appellant's counsel explained the delay in filing the MA as a lack of initial scrutiny of the ITAT's order, which only came to attention when it was referenced in a later assessment year. The Tribunal, however, found this explanation insufficient to justify the significant delay and dismissed the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 133485 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Co. ors
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: CHINUBHAI N. SHAH
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MISS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Misc. Application No.48/Ahd/2022 IN ITA No.1065/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year :2013-14 Shri Rashmin Ramniklal Vora 3/4, OM Complex CG Road, Ahmedabad. PAN : AALPV 6701 G Vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5) Ahmedabad. अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ /(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chinubhai N. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR स ु नवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 03/02/2023 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement: 08/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present Misc. Application has been filed by the assessee seeking recall of order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No.1066/Ahd/2017 dated 18.6.2019 and thereafter re-adjudicating the appeal on merit again. 2. There is a delay 923 days in filing of the Misc. Application by the assessee. This delay has been sought to be explained vide application dated 7.9.2022 filed before us. It reads as under: “1. When the order of SMC Bench ITA No. 1066/Ahd/2017 for Assessment Year 2013-2014 datedJL8th June 2019 was received, it was perused and thought that, the Hon'ble SMC Bench can never misinterpret the said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court hence no action was considered. MA No.48/Ahd/2022 2 2. For assessment Year 2014-2015 the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5) also followed the ratio of Hon'ble SMC Bench for Assessment Year 2013-2014. 3. However, while perusing the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)-5 in appeal No. ITA/502/A/2019 for Assessment Year 2015-2016 dated 05/12/2017 in great detail it was observed that ratio decided by Hon'ble SMC Bench for Assessment Year 2013-14 is not in line with the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, West v/s Rajendra Prasad Moody, Calcutta 115 ITR 519 (SC) inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case in very clear language has mentioned in so many paragraphs that "it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as result of the expenditure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given observation as under: "It is also interesting to note that according to Revenue, the expenditure would disqualify for deduction only if no income results from such expenditure in a particular assessment year but if there is some income, however small or meagre the expenditure would be eligible for deduction. This means that in a case where the expenditure is Rs 1000/- if the expenditure would be deductible and there would be resulting loss of Rs 999/- under the head 'Income from other sources, but if there is no income, then on the argument of Revenue the expenditure would have to be ignored as it would not to be liable to be deducted and observed as under: "This would indeed be a strange and highly anomalous result and it is difficult to believe that the Legislature could have ever intended to produce such illogicality". (Emphasis of underline is ours) Therefore it is earnestly requested that the issue be decided on merits so that correct ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court may remain on record. It is further urged that provision of section 254(1) may be exercised in such a situation, so that correct justice can be on record. In the case of Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs ujagar Singh & Co. ors (2010 (6) TMI 660, Supreme Court other citation 2010 (7) SCR 376 2010 (6) SCC 786 2010(6) JT 205, 210 (6) Scale 173), it was averred/held as follows by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. "After all justice can be done only when the matter is thought on merits and in accordance With law rather than to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold". 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee before us reiterated the contents of the above petition for explaining the delay of 923 days in filing of the present MA. 4. We have gone through contents of the above petition and we find that there could not have been a more unreasonable cause MA No.48/Ahd/2022 3 forwarded/advanced for the condonation of the delay. As per the petition filed before us, the reasons for delay , in clear and simple words, is that the assessee never cared to go through the order passed by the ITAT in its case when it was initially received by it on 18.6.2019 and went through the same only when order of the ITAT was followed by the ld.CIT(A) in the case of the assessee in subsequent assessment year i.e. Asst.Year 2015-16 for dismissing the assessee’s appeal. We fail to understand, how this lackadaisical attitude of the assessee can justify in any manner the delay in the filing of the appeal. On the contrary such assessees should be heavily penalized for wasting the time of Courts by filing such applications, seeking rectification in the orders, well beyond the period of limitation prescribed for the same. However unjustified the order of the ITAT may be, as advanced by the assessee before us in its application as above, the recourse provided in law for correcting the same has to be done in accordance with law, and within the time prescribed in law. Any delay in making the application beyond the limitation prescribed in law, is to be justified with a reasonable cause for entertaining the application if any. In the present case, in the absence of any reasonable cause forwarded by the assessee for the delay in filing of its MA, we see no reason for entertaining the same, and the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable, being filed beyond limitation prescribed in law. 5. In the result, MA of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 8 th February, 2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 08/02/2023