SAGAR KUKREJA,BHILAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

MA 18/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sagar Kukreja, the applicant, who filed a miscellaneous application arising from a previous appeal (ITA No.508/RPR/2024) concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The original appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to a delay of 125 days in filing, without any application for condonation of delay. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had not provided sufficient time for filing necessary documents and that the dismissal was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, however, found no merit in these claims, stating that the assessee was given adequate opportunities and that the application was an attempt to seek a review of the Tribunal's earlier decision, which is not permissible under the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711457 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Ashish Agarwal (2022) (SC), Rajeev Bansal (2024) (SC), T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.18/RPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.508/RPR/2024) Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Kukreja Plot No.33-34, Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Behind Sindhu Bhawan Bhilai, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) PAN: ASMPK7043F ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No. 18/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The captioned Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee arising out of ITA No.508/RPR/2024 for assessment year 2018- 19 u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee by filing the captioned miscellaneous application has submitted as follows: “1.1. The Hon'ble Bench has passed order u/s254(1) dt.20-1- 25 in the case of the assessee for AY18- 19; there was an order passed u/s.147 rws.144B dt.24-3-23 by the AO/NFAC making addition of Rs.81,44,211; thereafter, the CIT(A), NFAC has passed an ex-parte order u/s250 dt.3-5-24 by dismissing the appeal on non-appearance/non-prosecution of the assessee, confirming the order passed by the AO; 1.2. the assessee filed appeal in Form No.36 online on 3-12-24 which was delay, by 125 days; this case has been fixed for hearing on 27-12-24; the AR of the assessee has sought adjournment and the case is fixed on 2-1-25 but case was adjourned to 13- 1-25 due to non functioning of the Hon'ble Bench; and thereafter, on 13-1-25, case has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Bench on account of non-appearance of the assessee or his AR; and also not filing any application for delay condonation, and more so, without going into merits/ facts of the case, the Hon'ble Bench has dismissed the appeal; these are mistakes committed by The Hon'ble Bench; the Hon'ble Bench has not granted proper & reasonable time for filing of factual paper book along with necessary documents (i.e., copy of reasons recorded; copy of sanction u/s151 etc.) & for preparation of the case by the new counsel, because of the new counsel was unaware of the facts of the case; this is mistakes in the impugned order dt.20-1-25 by the Honble Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No. 18/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Bench; it is a case of lack of proper opportunity given to the assessee & thus, it is violation of principle of natural justice; since it was a case of reopening u/s147/148 dt.30-3-22 for AY18-19 under the new regime by the amended provisions of law by the Finance Act, 2021 involving notice u/s148A(a) dt.17-3-22; notice u/s148-AM dt.21-3-22; order u/s148A(d) dt.29-3-22; notice u/s148 dt.30-3-22 (under the new regime); since, it was under the new provisions of law as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 and there is Hon'ble SC judgments in Ashish Agarwal (2022) (SC) dt.4-5-22 & Rajeev Bansal (2024) (SC) dt.9-10-24 would be mandatorily be applicable; but all these facts has not been taken into account by the Hon'ble Bench while dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution of the assessee and thus, in absence of any paper/ documents/ paper book before the Hon'ble Bench & by not providing adequate time for filing these papers, impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Bench is a mistakenly passed order and it is requested to recall the impugned order and obliged. Submitted for judicious consideration.” 3. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal on account of delay itself for the reason that the assessee had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay of 125 days. It was submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the assesse has failed to point out any mistake which is apparent on record, therefore, the captioned miscellaneous application is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard the submissions of the parties herein and perused the material available on record. We are of the view that the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No.508/RPR/2024 dated 20.01.2025 had dismissed the appeal on account of delay for not filing any application Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No. 18/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 seeking condonation of the same. For the sake of completeness, the relevant para of the said order is culled out as follows: “7. As stated by the Ld. DR, and rightly so, the present appeal involves a delay of 125 days. As the assessee had not filed any application seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing of the present appeal, therefore, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal on the said count itself.” Nothing is emanating from the order of the Tribunal which suggests that sufficient opportunities were not provided to the assessee to file factual paper book a/w. documentary evidence. The Ld. Counsel has failed to place on record any evidence which supports his aforesaid contention. Therefore, we are of the considered view that as the assessee had failed to point out any mistake which is apparent, obvious, patent and glaring from record, therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee in the garb of the aforesaid miscellaneous applications is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.508/RPR/2024, dated 20.01.2025 which is beyond the scope of the powers of the Tribunal as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: \" ....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No. 18/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record........\" Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it was held as under: \"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.” 5. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No. 18/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 25th July, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ /The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Printed from counselvise.com "