RASUN EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD

MA 50/HYD/2024

AI Insights

M/s. Rasun Exports Pvt. Ltd. filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall an earlier Tribunal order dated 22.03.2021, which had dismissed their appeal. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2013-14, where the Assessing Officer had made certain additions to the income of the assessee. The assessee argued that due to a mistake by their Chartered Accountant, they failed to pay the tax as per Form No.III within the due date, leading to the rejection of their application under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the M.A. due to the significant delay in filing and the lack of grounds for condonation of such delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28999 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Sri Bhavani Ventures Vs. DCIT, Reliance Communications
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. KUMARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SANDHYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 254(2)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.50/Hyd/2024 (In आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1495/Hyd/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) M/s. Rasun Exports Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN : AABCR0773P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Adoni. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri R. Kumaran, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 20/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 30/12/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. : This Miscellaneous Application (“M.A.”) has been filed by M/s. Rasun Exports Pvt. Ltd. (“the assessee”) u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') against ITA No.1495/Hyd/2019 dated 22.03.2021 for A.Y. 2013-14. 2 The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) had submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal on 22.03.2021 may kindly be recalled. In this regard, the Ld. AR in the M.A., in paragraphs 2 to 4 has mentioned as under : M A No. 50/Hyd/2024 2 “ 2. The Assessing Officer converted the case to scrutiny and issued notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the I.T.Act. The petitioner responded to the notices issued. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act on 18.03.2015 determining the total income at Rs.2,74,94,315/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made the following additions: a) The Assessing Officer is of the view that interest of Rs.1,46,26,781/- was paid to M/s SREI International Finance Limited without deduction of tax at source. The Assessing Officer, therefore, invoked the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act and disallowed the interest paid; b) The Assessing Officer also disallowed the expenditure or freight charges, repairs and maintenance, miscellaneous expenses, stores and spares, transportation aggregating to Rs.44,09,904/-. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad. Both the additions were the subject matter of appeal before the learned CIT (A). The leaned CIT (A) vide order dated 29.08.2009 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT, the petitioner filed an application before the Designated Authority for accepting the application under Vivad-se- Viswas Scheme of 2020. The Designated Authority issued Form No.III. 4. The petitioner, in fact, filed applications before the Designated Authority for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Both the appeals were before the Hon'ble ITAT. The Designated Authority issued Form No.III for both the assessment years. The Chartered Accountant, by mistake, required the appellant to pay tax relating to the assessment year 2012-13 and omitted to intimate the petitioner about the payment for the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the petitioner could not pay tax as per Form No.III within the due date. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, issued notice for making payment of taxes on 28.10.2024. Till then, the petitioner was under the bonafildee impression that the matter was settled. When the notice was received for payment of taxes, the petitioner realized that due to not making payment of taxes, the application made under Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme was rejected by the Designated Authority. The Designated Authority did not pass any order rejecting the application made by the petitioner herein.” M A No. 50/Hyd/2024 3 The Ld. AR had further relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Sri Bhavani Ventures Vs. DCIT in M.A. Nos.58 & 59/Hyd/2023 dated 4.8.2023 and prayed for the order of Tribunal be recalled. 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and he had also drawn our attention to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Communications. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that in the present case, the M.A. was filed u/s.254(2) of the Act on 13.11.2024. There is no reason for condonation of delay provided and for condoning the delay of more than 2 ½ years is not permissible in law and the M.A. may kindly be dismissed. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record available. In the present case, undoubtedly the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn vide order dated 22.03.2021. It is the contention of the assessee before us that the petitioner could not pay advance tax in Form No.3 within the due date prescribed and the Assessing Officer, they are pressurising to make the payment and the assessee had paid the tax on 28.10.2024. In these facts, the assessee had filed the M.A. on 13.11.2024. In our view, it is the duty bounded by the assessee to pay the tax within the time frame granted under VSVS and in this case the assessee has failed to pay the tax within the prescribed time limit, then, the aggrieved party i.e. petitioner or the respondent can move an application within the M A No. 50/Hyd/2024 4 reasonable time as provided by the Act u/s.254(2) of the Act for revival of the appeal. In the present case, as noted above, the Tribunal has passed the order on 22.03.2021 and thereafter the present application was filed on 13.11.2024. Thus there is a delay of more than two years i.e. the application has been filed after a period of 32 months from the date of passing of the order. The law is settled that the Tribunal does not have the power as provided to recal the order u/s.254(2) of the Act, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. Further, the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Sri Bhavani Ventures Vs. DCIT (supra) as relied on by the Ld. AR is of no use as the Tribunal while passing the order has not discussed the above stated provisions in the case of Reliance Communications (supra). 5. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th Dec., 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 30.12.2024. * Reddy gp M A No. 50/Hyd/2024 5 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. M/s. Rasun Exports Pvt. Ltd., 6-53-351, II Floor, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2. ITO, Ward-3(4), Hyderabad. 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, "