M/s. Raja Ram Educational Scoiety, New Delhi V. CIT(Exem), Chandigarh

MA 552/DEL/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Raja Ram Educational Society, which filed miscellaneous applications against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.03.2017. The applications were based on the grounds that the assessee was not given an opportunity to represent its case adequately and that the Tribunal did not consider the judgments cited by the assessee. The Tribunal, after considering the applications and the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Telecom Limited, decided that the allegations did not warrant a recall of the orders as the Tribunal's powers under section 254(2) are limited to correcting apparent mistakes and do not extend to re-evaluating the case's merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121597 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Reliance Telecom Limited in Civil Appeal No.7110 and 7111 of 2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.552/Del/2017 & 536/Del/2017 (In ITA No.2843 & 2844/Del/2016) Assessment Year : --- M/s. Raja Ram Educational Society, J-1308, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon HR PAN No.AACAR3294E Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri S.L.Anuragi, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 06-01-2023 Date of pronouncement : 06-01-2023 O R D E R PER N.K BILLAIYA, AM : Miscellaneous application No.552/Del/2017 and 536/Del/2017 are directed towards the order of this Tribunal in ITA no.2843 and 2844/Del/2016 order dated 30.03.2017. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of repetitive notices since 17.01.2022, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte. 3. In its application the assessee contents that it was not allowed the opportunity to represent the case and argue for it inspite of his repeated request for allowing him to speak and defend his case. A letter has also been filed before the Hon’ble President and the appellate order has been passed without considering and discussing the judgments relied upon by the assessee during the course of the arguments. Therefore, the order should be recalled back and the assessee may be allowed the full opportunity to argue the appeal. 4. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contents of the miscellaneous applications qua the order of this Tribunal (supra). Firstly we are of the considered view that the allegation that the Counsel was not allowed to speak cannot be accepted in miscellaneous application u/s. 254 (2) of the Act and secondly non consideration of the judgment is not sufficient for the powers conferred u/s. 254 (2) of the Act. It should be apt to consider the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Reliance Telecom Limited in Civil Appeal No.7110 and 7111 of 2021. The relevant findings read as under :- “4. In the present case, a detailed order was passed by the ITAT when it passed an order on 06.09.2013, by which the ITAT held in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, the said order could not have been recalled by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. If the Assessee was of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous, either on facts or in law, in that case, the only remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer the appeal before the High Court, which as such was already filed by the Assessee before the High Court, which the Assessee withdrew after the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013. Therefore, as such, the order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 which has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal conferred under Section 254 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 is unsustainable, which ought to have been set aside by the High Court. 5. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the common order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The original orders passed by the ITAT dated 06.09.2013 passed in the respective appeals preferred by the Revenue are hereby restored.” 5. Considering the facts of the miscellaneous applications in the light of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court both the miscellaneous applications are dismissed. 6. Decision announced in the open court in the presence of Sr. DR on 06.01.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 06-01-2023 *Neha*