MANGALA KAMATH, MUMBAI V. ITO 20(2)(2), MUMBAI

MA 59/MUM/2022

AI Insights

Mrs. Mangala Kamath filed a miscellaneous application (MA) seeking rectification of a mistake in a previous Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2007-08. The original Tribunal order had deleted an addition under Sec. 40A(3) but sustained an addition under Sec. 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's subsequent MA was dismissed as it was deemed to be beyond the allowable time frame and attempted to seek a review of the Tribunal's decision, which is not allowed under the Act. The Tribunal upheld the dismissal, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines and the prohibition against reviewing its own orders under the specified section.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302567 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “B”BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 59/MUM/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 72/MUM/2015, A.Y.2007-08) Mrs. Mangala Kamath 1302/3, navjivan commercial Premises, lamington road, Mumbai – 400008 Vs. ITO – 20(2)(2) Piramal Chambers, 6 th Floor, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012. लेख सं./ज आइआर सं.PAN/GIR No. AJEPK4644H ( ल /Applicant) ( /Respondent) Applicant by Ms.Neha Sharma& Ms.Ushashi Datt.AR Respondent by Ms.Samruddhi Hande.DR स ु नव ई र ख/Date of Hearing 15.07.2022 घोषण र ख/Date of Pronouncement 30.12.2022 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the miscellaneous application (MA) in ITA No. 72/MUM/2015 for the A.Y.2007-08 seeking rectification of mistake crept in the Hon’ble Tribunal order. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal has passed the order on 10.01.2018, 2 M.A. No. 59/MUM/2022 (A.Y.: 2007-08) (Mangala Kamath) where the Tribunal has deleted the addition under Sec.40A (3) of the Act and sustained the addition u/s 41(1) of the Act though the assessee has filed the information on this disputed issue.Subsequently the asssessee has filed miscellaneous application and was dismissed. The assessee again has filed the present miscellaneous application on 7-03-2022 and seeking the relief. Contra Ld. DR supported the order of the Tribunal. 3. We find the Hon’ble Tribunal in MA No. 131/Mum/2020 dated 25.10.2021 has dismissed the MA and observed at page 1 of the order read as under: By way of this miscellaneous application the assessee seeks rectification of apparent from the record u/s.254(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961 in the order of this Tribunal in ITA No. 72/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2007-08 vide order dated 10.01.2018. 2. In the miscellaneous application, assessee has contended as under:- "This is an application for recall of order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Dated 12.12.2017 pass by the appellate tribunal. The assessee had submitted written submission and compilation of paper book. The order dated 12.12.2017 was passed and received by the Assessee on 01/01/2018 for the facts and circumstances it is submitted as under. 1. The order received by has. been given to Mr. S.L.Jain, Aauthorised Representative for Filling MA. but he was suffering from/ Sevier back pain and could able to walk. Finally he has to for spine surgery at Kokilaben Ambani Hospital on 6th August, 2019. Than after V- to complete rest 3 M.A. No. 59/MUM/2022 (A.Y.: 2007-08) (Mangala Kamath) for six months. Then after not able to walk. Due to heavy and pain killer medicine he is suffering posted and other disease. Assessee prevented with reasonable cause. 2. As per section 254 (1) of The Income Tax Act 1961. The Appellant Tribunal may after giving both parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard. Pass such order there on it think fit. 3. Under the circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the applicant may be given opportunity of being heard only by recalling the W impugned order, it is submitted with great respect that keeping with the statutory respect, that in keeping with statutory principle of natural justice, the impugned order may be recalled and Appeal may be Fixed Again for Fresh hearing. 4. The Applicant submits that he is not aware of the procedure followed by Hon'ble ITAT and its registry. The Applicant was completely relying on his authorised representative with respective to the same. The Applicant was under the bonafide belief that his authorised representative is regularly attending the hearing before Hon'ble ITAT and keeping a track on the status of appeal. The Applicant was not aware of the date of hearing before Hon'ble ITAT .Therefore he could not personally attend the hearing before Hon'ble ITAT. Statement of the Facts The Assessee has paid money to all creditors of the details Filed on record but wrongly addition has been made u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961." 3. We have heard the Ld. DR. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. We note that ITAT has passed an order. In the said order, it is duly mentioned that assessee was represented by Shri S.L.Jain. Hence, assessee's contention that assessee was not represented in an exparte order is totally wrong and unsustainable. Moreover, as 4 M.A. No. 59/MUM/2022 (A.Y.: 2007-08) (Mangala Kamath) evident from the submission above, assessee is seeking a review of the order of the ITAT, which is not permissible as per section 254(2). Moreover, as evident above, the appeal has been filed more than six months after the passing of the order. Hence, the same is also not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as time. barred. Hence, this miscellaneous application by the assessee stands dismissed. 4. We considering the facts, circumstances, and material on record find that the asssessee has filed the MA beyond the time limit prescribed under section 254(2) of the Act and the Honble Tribunal has considered the factual aspects and dismissed the MA filed earlier as discussed above. Accordingly, we do not find merits in the present miscellaneous application filed by the asssessee and is dismissed. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the asssessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.12.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (BASKARAN BR) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 30/12/2022 KRK Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)- 5 M.A. No. 59/MUM/2022 (A.Y.: 2007-08) (Mangala Kamath) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar)ITAT, Mumbai