Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore V. Cheruvathur Veetil Damodaran, Mysuru

MA 94/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue seeking to recall an earlier order of the ITAT dated 7.4.2022. The MA was filed on 3.2.2023, which was beyond the statutory period allowed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, referencing multiple judicial pronouncements, concluded that it did not have the authority to condone the delay in filing the MA and thus dismissed the application in limine.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124223 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. ACIT, Arvindbhai H. Shah Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ms. Shamsunissa Begum Vs. DCIT, Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC “B” BENCH : BANGALORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MP No.94/Bang/2023 [in ITA No.678/Bang/2021] Assessment year : 2019-20 ADIT, CPC, Bangalore / ITO, Ward 1(1), Mysuru. Vs. Cherivathur Veetil Damodaran, Sarathy & Sarathy, Advocates, 15 Nachiappa St., JR. Paza First Floor Erode 638 001 Tamilnadu. PAN: ADFPD 3713K APPLICANT RESPONDENT Applicant by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel. Respondent by : None Date of hearing : 23.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 27.06.2023 O R D E R This Miscellaneous Application at the instance of the Revenue is seeking to recall the order dated 7.4.2022 of the ITAT in ITA No.678/Bang/2021. 2. The above order of the Tribunal was received in the Office of the Pr.CIT on 25.4.2022 and the MA was filed before the Tribunal on 3.2.2023. Admittedly, the MA is filed beyond the period prescribed u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The Tribunal does not have power to condone the delay when the MA is filed belatedly MP No.94/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 2 under section 254(2) of the Act. In holding so, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements: • S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. ACIT reported in (2018) 300 ITR 96 (Kar.) the MA. • Arvindbhai H. Shah Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2004] 91 ITD 101 (Ahd.)(SB) • Ms. Shamsunissa Begum Vs. DCIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 96 (Bangalore – Trib.) • Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [2009] 120 ITD 481 (Delhi) • Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair [2010] 193 Taxman 28 (Cochin) (MAG) 3. In light of the above judicial pronouncements, we reject the MA filed by the Revenue in limine. 4. In the result, the MA filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 27 th day of June, 2023. Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 27 th June, 2023. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.