ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Proman Ltd., New Delhi

MA 595/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6888 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALIL MISHRA
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : FRIDAY : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A NO. 595/DEL/2010 (IT(SS)A NO.325/DEL/97) BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD ENDING 21.11.1996 ACIT, CIRCLE 14, NEW DELHI. VS. M/S PROMAIN LTD., KANCHANJUNGA (7 TH FLOOR), 18, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI 1. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI SALIL MISHRA, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SALIL AGGARWAL & SHRI GAUTAM JAIN O R D E R PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23 RD JUNE, 2006 IN IT (SS) NO.325/DEL/97. THE SAME WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 254 (2) OF THE IT ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS TIME BARRED AS IT HAS BEEN FILED BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED APPLICATION HAS BEEN FI LED BY THE REVENUE ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 AND THE MAXIMUM TIME AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO FILE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 254 (2) WAS UPTO 22 ND JUNE, 2010 AND, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPLICA TION DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS MA NO.595/DEL/2010 2 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE PROV ISIONS OF LAW AND ALSO BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SR EE AYYANAR SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS VS. CIT 301 ITR 434 (SC) WHEREIN HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAD EXPRESSED THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY TH E HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARSHWARDHAN CHEMICALS AND MIN ERALS LTD. VS. UOI 256 ITR 767 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THE TRIBUNAL CAN REJECT T HE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS. 3. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AS THE APPLICATIO N WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS D ATED 23 RD JUNE, 2006, WE FIND THAT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS PRESCRIBED FOR FILING THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICA TION OF MISTAKE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT AND, THERE FORE, BARRED BY LIMITATION AND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. SUCH PROPOSITION IS NOT ONLY SUPPORTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, BUT ALSO BY THE AFOREMENTION ED DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE AF OREMENTIONED CASE HAVE AGREED WITH THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY HONBLE RA JASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARSHWARDHAN CHEMICALS AND MINERALS LTD. VS . UOI 256 ITR 767 WHEREIN HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN REJECT THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION AFTER THE E XPIRY OF FOUR YEARS. SUCH PROPOSITION IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HO NBLE M.P. HIGH COURT LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF AJIT KUMAR PITALIYA VS. ITO 318 ITR 182 (MP). THUS, WE DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE ON ACC OUNT OF BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED.. . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.09.20 11. SD/- SD/- [K.D. RANJAN] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 23.09.2011. MA NO.595/DEL/2010 3 DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES