RAVI VIJAYALAKSHMI,ATHIPATTU V. ITO, NC2-6(1), CHENNAI

MA 127/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ravi Vijayalakshmi, the appellant, who filed a miscellaneous application (M.A.) seeking recall of an earlier Tribunal order dismissing his appeal ex-parte. The dismissal was initially believed to be resolvable under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024, but later found not to be the case as the appeal had already been dismissed. The Departmental Representative objected to the maintainability of the M.A. due to it being filed beyond the limitation period. However, referencing the Delhi High Court's decision in Pacific Projects Ltd V/s ACIT, the Tribunal found that the application was within the permissible time frame as it was filed within six months of the assessee's actual knowledge of the dismissal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775433 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Pacific Projects Ltd V/s ACIT [2021] 125 taxmann.com 94 (Delhi), Golden Times Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 524 (Delhi), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. [2004] 140 TAXMAN 297 (DELHI)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: Y. SRIDHAR; F.C.A
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ \u0010ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI मा ननीय \u001bी मनु क ुमा र िग र, \u0010ा ियक सद! एवं मा ननीय एस. आर. रघुना था , लेखा सद! क े सम) BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *े या िचका सं. / M.A No.127/Chny/2025 (Arising in ITA No.2518/Chny/2024) िनधा +रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ravi Vijayalakshmi, 211/A, R.S. Road, Reddipalayam, Athipattu – 600 120. [PAN AKBPV 5530B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथ- की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A /0थ- की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member): The above captioned miscellaneous application (‘M.A.’ in short) filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 seeking recall of the Tribunal order dated 31.12.2024. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No.127/Chny/2025 Ravi Vijayalakshmi :- 2 -: 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee has filed the present M.A. belatedly by 37 days. The ld. Counsel further contended that the assessee was under bona fide impression that the tax dispute would be resolved under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024. However, assessee later came to know that the dispute under DTVSV Scheme, 2024 could not be resolved as the appeal before the Tribunal is already dismissed ex- parte. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative, Ld. DR has raised an objection about the maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee after the limitation period provided u/s 254(2) of the Act. He has submitted that the impugned order was passed on 31.12.2024 but the present Miscellaneous Application has been filed on 07.08.2025 which is barred by limitation. The Ld. DR has submitted that the limitation will run from the end of the month in which the impugned order was received by the assessee. Hence, she contended that the present application is liable to be rejected summarily. Printed from counselvise.com M.A No.127/Chny/2025 Ravi Vijayalakshmi :- 3 -: 4. We have heard both the sides, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee had filed the application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024 on 11.03.2025 and thereafter, the assessee came to know that the appeal before the Tribunal is already dismissed ex-parte. Even, if we assume that the assessee had the knowledge of dismissal of appeal on very date of filing the application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024 i.e; on 11.03.2025, then the M.A. is filed within statutory time of 6 months. 5. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pacific Projects Ltd V/s ACIT [2021] 125 taxmann.com 94 (Delhi) in para 7 to 9 observed as under: \"7. This Court is also of the view that the ITAT has erroneously concluded that the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation under Section 254(2) of the Act inasmuch as the petitioner had filed the miscellaneous application within six months of actual receipt of the order. If the petitioner/assessee had no notice and no knowledge of the order passed by the ITAT, it cannot be said that the limitation would start from the date the order was pronounced by the Tribunal. 8. In fact, the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner/assessee by way of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 'Golden Times Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT' [2020] 113 taxmann.com 524 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under: 10. Be that as it may, the real question before us is as to what would be the relevant date for the purpose of commencement of Printed from counselvise.com M.A No.127/Chny/2025 Ravi Vijayalakshmi :- 4 -: period of limitation. To hold the date of the order to be the relevant date for the purpose of calculating the period of six months envisaged under section 254(2) of the Act, can lead to several absurd and anomalous situations. An order passed without the knowledge of the aggrieved party, would render the remedy against the order meaningless as the same would be lost by limitation while the person aggrieved would not even know that an order has been passed. Such an interpretation would not advance the cause of justice and would not be the correct approach and thus cannot be countenanced. A person who is aggrieved or concerned with an order would legitimately be expected to exercise his rights conferred by the provision and unless the order is communicated or is known to him, either actually or constructively, he would not be in a position to avail such a remedy. The words \"six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed\" therefore, cannot be given a narrow and restrictive interpretation. There are several decisions of the Apex Court and other High Courts, where similar question came up for consideration. The Courts have always leaned in favour of an interpretation which would enable an aggrieved party to avail its remedy in a meaningful manner, so that the right conferred by a provision does not remain fanciful or illusionary. 6. Therefore, in the above factual matrix and respectfully following the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred supra, the present application is filed within six months of actual knowledge of the order i.e., on 11.03.2025. 7. We have also gone through the reasons for non-appearance before the Tribunal. As per Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. [2004] 140 TAXMAN 297 (DELHI), we find the reason given by the Printed from counselvise.com M.A No.127/Chny/2025 Ravi Vijayalakshmi :- 5 -: assessee as sufficient cause for non-appearance. Hence, we recall the order of the Tribunal dated 31.12.2024. 8. In the result, the Miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed and registry is directed to fix the date of hearing of the appeal on 08.10.2025. Both the parties be informed accordingly. Order pronounced on 10th day of September, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R.Raghunatha) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member (मनु क ुमार िग र) (Manu Kumar Giri) \u0010ाियक सद! / Judicial Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 10th September, 2025. EDN/- आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai /Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "