Ranjana Chawla (L/H of Late Baldev Raj Chawla), Delhi V. ACIT, Central Circle- 9, New Delhi

MA 779/DEL/2018

AI Insights

This case involves a miscellaneous application filed by Ranjana Chawla, the legal heir of the late Baldev Raj Chawla, seeking rectification of an ITAT order dated 19.06.2018 concerning the assessment year 2005-06. The application pointed out an error in the recorded year of demise of the deceased assessee and sought corrections based on a judgment from the Delhi High Court. The Departmental Representative opposed the application, arguing that it effectively sought a review of the Tribunal's order, which is not allowed. The Tribunal acknowledged the clerical error regarding the date of death but upheld the prohibition against reviewing its orders under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112943 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-12-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Savita Kapila v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1) New Delhi, CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. in civil appeal no. 7110 of 2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

1 MA No. 779/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 779/Del/2018 ( In ITA No. 304/DEL/2018) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Late Baldev Raj Chawla, Through L/H Ranjana Chawla, B-5, Madhuban, Delhi-110092 PAN- ABSPC 2265Q Vs ACIT, Central Circle-9, New Delhi APPLICANT RESPONDENT Applicant by None Respondent by Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.04.2023 Date of pronouncement 11.05.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This miscellaneous application has been preferred by the assessee, seeking rectification of the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench “SMC” in ITA no. 304/Del/2018 for assessment year 2005-06. 2. At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that on earlier occasions also, since 31.12.2021, no one attended the proceedings. However, a letter filed by the assessee is placed on record, which submits as under: “The above said miscellaneous application is fixed for hearing before your honour on 13/05/2022. With reference to mistake pointed out in para no. 4 of the order dated 19/06/2018 in para 6 to 8 of miscellaneous application filed, your honour kind attention is also drawn towards the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of Savita Kapila v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1) New 2 MA No. 779/Del/2018 Delhi wherein Hon’ble Court in para 32 of the said order has observed as under: - “32. This Court is of the view that in the absence of a statutory provision it is difficult to cast a duty upon the legal representatives to intimate the factum of death of an assessee to the income tax department. After all, there may be cases where the legal representatives are estranged from the deceased assessee or the deceased assessee may have bequeathed his entire wealth to a charity. Consequently, whether PAN record was updated or not or whether the Department was made aware by the legal representatives or not is irrelevant. In Alamelu Veerappan (supra) it has been held "nothing has been placed before this Court by the Revenue to show that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee to immediately intimate the death of the assessee or take steps to cancel the PAN registration." Copy of judgment is enclosed herewith. In view of facts narrated by Hon’ble bench in para 3 of the order dated 19/06/2018 which is also reproduced in para 6(a) of miscellaneous application, wherein Hon’ble bench has also observed that return of income for AY 2010-11 was filed by Smt Ranjana Chawla in the capacity of legal heir of late Shri Baldev Raj Chawla and therefore mistake pointed out in the miscellaneous application filed and in view of judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High court, your honour is requested to rectify the errors in the order passed in case of ITA No. 304/Del/2018 and oblige. It is also being requested by the legal heirs that miscellaneous application may kindly be decided without any personal hearing in view of this letter and miscellaneous application filed. Kindly do the needful. Thanking you. Yours faithfully (Ranjana Chawla)” Therefore, the misc. application is being decided in the absence of the assessee and on the basis of the material available on record. 3 MA No. 779/Del/2018 3. Learned DR opposed the contents of the misc. application and submitted that there is no mistake, much less apparent from record in the order of the ITAT. He submitted that by filing the present misc. application, the assessee is seeking review of the Tribunal’s order, which is not permissible under the law. The learned DR also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. in civil appeal no. 7110 of 2021. 4. I have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record. I find that the order dated 19.06.2018, inadvertently, has wrongly mentioned the incorrect year of demise of the deceased assessee. Therefore, same may be read as “10 th June 2015” instead of “10 th June 2016”. In respect of other contentions, I find merit into the contention of the learned DR that by way of making such submissions, the assessee is seeking review of the order which is not permissible under law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Reliance telecom Ltd. in Civil appeal No. 7110 of 2021, has held as under: “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 4 MA No. 779/Del/2018 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. 5. Hence, the other contentions of the assessee related to observations of the Tribunal are rejected. 6. Misc. application of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 11 th May, 2023. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *M P* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI