MICRO PLANTAE LTD,MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2), MUMBAI

MA 246/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Micro Plantae Ltd. filed a miscellaneous application (MA) seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order that dismissed their appeal due to an extraordinary delay in filing. The assessee argued that the delay was unintentional and supported their claim with an affidavit from their Chartered Accountant, Nimesh Thakore. However, the Tribunal had previously considered these arguments and found the delay inordinate, noting the assessee's capability to engage in complex litigation and regular tax filings. The Tribunal rejected the MA, stating that it was essentially a request for a review, which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826708 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAN KOSURI
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARMESH SHAH; MITALI PAREKH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Rectification of order

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 246/MUM/2025 (AY : 2005-06) (Arising out of ITA No. 5112/Mum/2024) (Physical hearing) Micro Plantae Ltd. 4, Unity House, 2nd Floor, 8, M.P. Marg, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004. [PAN: AAACM 3686 P] Vs ACIT – 5(2), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Parekh Advocates Revenue by Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.01.2026 Order under section 254(2) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This miscellaneous application (MA) is filed by assessee for rectification of order dated 23.07.2025 passed in ITA No. 5112/M/2024 for A.Y. 2005-06. In the present application, the applicant-assessee has contended that there was a delay of 5638 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. A detailed application for condonation of delay was filed. In support of condonation of delay, affidavit of Nimesh Thakore, CA was also filed. At the time of hearing detailed argument were made explaining the bona fide reason for filing appeal belatedly. The Tribunal considered the delay as an extra ordinary delay and not condoned for several reasons. The Tribunal while rejecting application for condonation of delay observed that assessee is a corporate entity having team of expert Chartered Accountant and Advocates, the assessee is contested litigation in various judicial form including Bombay High court and Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 246/Mum/2025 Micro Plantae Ltd. 2 filing return of income regularly. The Tribunal however accepted the fact that appeal was filed after giving effect and after availing benefit of set off of brought forward losses which was not matching with computation of total income in the assessment order. The order of Tribunal suffers from various mistake which are apparent on record and may be rectified. The assessee is specifically contended that affidavit of Nimesh Thakore, CA have been overlooked and submission of learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the revenue is relied upon. The submission of ld. DR is factually incorrect. 2. The learned authorised representative (ld. AR) of the assessee made his submission on similar lines that in the affidavit of Nimesh Thakore, CA, the assessee has explained the delay. The delay was not intentional. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that a lenient view may be taken considering the fact that when technical consideration is kept against cause of substantial justice, technical consideration may be overlooked. The application was argued for about 15-20 minutes by repeating all the submissions, which were considered at the time of hearing the appeal. It was ultimately submitted that the order dated 23.07.2025 may be recalled, or delay in filing appeal may be condoned and appeal may be restored to its original number for making submissions afresh and adjudicating the appeal. 2. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that assessee is seeking review of the order dated 23.07.2025, which is beyond the scope of power of Tribunal under section 254(2) of Income Tax Act. The Tribunal while considering the condonation of delay has passed a details and reasoned order considering the fact that there was inordinate delay of 5638 days. Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 246/Mum/2025 Micro Plantae Ltd. 3 There was no reasonable, plausible and convincing reason to the satisfaction of bench was shown. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the contents of MA filed by assessee and the order passed by this combination on 23.07.2025. We find that in the application for rectification (MA), the assessee has vaguely contended that affidavit of Chartered Accountant was overlooked and submissions of ld. DR for the revenue were factually incorrect, which was relied. On careful perusal of our order, we find that while considering the submission of assessee, this combination had dealt with the plea of condonation of delay in details and passed a detailed speaking order. Resultantly, the application of condonation of delay was not allowed and appeal was dismissed in limine. Now, the assessee is seeking review of the order which is beyond the scope of provision of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, application filed by assessee is rejected. No order as to cost. 4. In the result, the appeal of assesseeis dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05/01/2026 Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated:05/01/2026 Biswajit Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 246/Mum/2025 Micro Plantae Ltd. 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "