The Income-tax Officer, WARD III(1), Ferozepur V. M/s. Vohra Foods Pvt. LTd., GURHARSAHAI

MA 7/ASR/2019

AI Insights

This case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue against a previous order (MA No. 44/Asr/2017) in the context of an Income Tax Appeal (ITA No. 86/Asr/2014) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The revenue contended that the ITAT erred in recalling their earlier order, arguing that the recall was beyond the permissible time limit set by the amended Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, which restricts the rectification period to six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. The ITAT, however, found no provision allowing for the rectification of a MA through another MA, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115184 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 7/Asr/2019 (In M.A. No.44/Asr/2017 in I.T.A.No. 86/Asr/2014) A.Y. 2010-11 ITO- Ward -3(1), Ferozepur. (Appellant) Vs. M/s Vohra Foods Pvt. Ltd. Gurharsahai [PAN: AABCV1106A] (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA. Respondent by Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement .07.2023 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: This instant Miscellaneous Application (in brevity the MA) was filed by the revenue against the Miscellaneous Application No. 44/Asr/2017 which was originated from the ITA No.86/Asr/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The ld. DR first pointed out that the MA is filed related to this order of MA No. 44/Asr/2017 date of order 13.09.2018 as per order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench. M.A. No. 7/Asr/2019 (In M.A. No.44/Asr/2017 in I.T.A.No. 86/Asr/2014) 2 The ld. DR invited our attention in application para no. 2 to 4 which are reproduced as below: “2. The ITAT has allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the assesssee by holding that while disposing of the appeal in ITA No.86/Asr/2014,counsel of the assessee had filed an application for adjournment and the ITAT had rejected the same and that, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT could be recalled. 3. The Hon’ble ITAT erred in allowing the miscellaneous application of the assesssee in view of the following facts:- (i) Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, which gives the ITAT power to rectify an order passed by it was amended w.e.f. 01- 06-2016 whereby time period available to the ITAT to consider and rectify any mistake apparent from record was reduced from four years to six months from the end of the month in which order was passed .Accordingly, this amendment was applicable for orders passed by the ITAT on or after 01-06-2016.The order recalled in this case was passed by the ITAT on 18-04-2017 and as per existing provisions of section 254(2)of the Act, time limitation for recalling the order by the ITAT expired on 31-10- 2017.Hence, the order could not be recalled by the ITAT after 31-10-2017. M.A. No. 7/Asr/2019 (In M.A. No.44/Asr/2017 in I.T.A.No. 86/Asr/2014) 3 (ii) In view of the above, the ITAT erred in allowing the miscellaneous application filed by the assesssee by an order dated 13-09-2018, which was beyond a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Tribunal sought to be recalled was passed. 4. In view of the above facts, a mistake of law apparent from record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has crept In the order dated 13-09-2018 of the ITAT in MA No. 44/(Asr)/2017 arising out of ITA No.86/(Asr)/2014. In order to get the mistake rectified, a Miscellaneous Application is filed u/s 254(2) of the Act.” 3. The ld. AR vehemently argued and placed that MA against MA is not accepted. 4. Weheard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. The revenue has agitated the grievance against the order of MA 44/Asr/2017. The section 254(2) has not empowered the bench to rectify the MA through another MA. The ld. DR was unable to submit any contrary judgment against this issue. Accordingly, the MA of revenue is dismissed. M.A. No. 7/Asr/2019 (In M.A. No.44/Asr/2017 in I.T.A.No. 86/Asr/2014) 4 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the revenue bearing M.A. No. 07/Asr/2019 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.07.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order