SAHAKAR MAHARSHI KASHTI VIVIDH KARYAKARI SEWA SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR V. INCOME TAC OFFCER, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

MA 64/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sahakar Maharshi Kashti Vividh Karyakari Sewa Sahakari Society Limited, a credit co-operative society, which filed a Miscellaneous Application against an earlier Tribunal order dismissing their appeal due to a 347-day delay in filing. The Tribunal had previously directed the assessee to submit case law supporting their delay condonation application, which they did. However, the Tribunal's initial decision did not consider these submissions, leading to the filing of the Miscellaneous Application. The Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that the powers under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act are limited to correcting apparent mistakes and do not extend to reviewing decisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792371 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAJOJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASAD BHANDARI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHREE DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER धिधिि आिेदन सं. / MA No.64/PUN/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 367/PUN/2024) धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sahakar Maharshi Kashti Vividh Karyakari Sewa Sahakari Society Limited, At Post Kashti, Shrigonda, Dist.-Ahmednagar-414701 PAN : AAAAK0815A Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Ahmednagar अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prasad Bhandari Department by : Shri Majoj Kumar Tripathi Date of hearing : 12-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02-12-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : By this Miscellaneous Application the assessee seeks to recall the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.367/PUN/2024 dated 16.05.2021 pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. 2. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee states the following facts and contentions raised therein : “The Hon’ble bench has passed the order dated 16.05.2024 in case of the above-mentioned assessee vide ITA Nos. 367/PUN/2024. The copy of the same is attached herewith as per Annexure-1. It is respectfully submitted that a mistake which is apparent from record have crept into the order of the Hon'ble Bench which is as follows- 1) The assessee is a Credit Co-operative Society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Bench against the order of Respected Pr. CIT-1, Pune on 22.02.2024. 2) There was delay in filling the said appeal by 347 days and the affidavit in respect of the same has been attached along with the appeal memo along with the documentary evidences. 3) During the course of hearing on 14.05.2024, the Hon’ble Bench had directed to submit the case law to support the delay condonation application. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.64/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 4) Accordingly, immediately on 15.05.2024, the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of the delay condonation application has been mailed to the Hon'ble Bench. Moreover, the assessee has also submitted the copy of the order of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench vide ITA no. 398/PUN/2024 in which the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench has directed the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of more than 3 years and 5 months and hear the case on merit. The copy of the said mail along with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the order of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench is attached herewith as per Annexure-2. 5) However, after pronouncement of order by the Hon'ble Bench on 16.05.2024, it is learnt that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by not condoning the delay of 347 days without considering the mail sent by the assessee on 15.05.2024 along with the order of Hon'ble Supreme court and the order of Hon'ble co- ordinate Bench. 6) Thus, the Hon'ble Bench did not consider the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been filed as per its direction only. 7) Therefore, considering the above facts, the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the covered case law, Hon'ble Bench is kindly requested to condone the delay of in filing the appeal by 347 days and further requested to set aside the order of Ld. PCIT-1, Pune and make the justice with the assessee.” 3. The Ld. AR at the time of hearing reiterated the above stated contentions made in the Miscellaneous Application and requested to recall the matter for hearing afresh. 4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the contention of the AR in the said Miscellaneous Application is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) as there is no mistake apparent on record in the impugned order of the Tribunal (supra). The Ld. DR argued that by way of this Miscellaneous Application the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is seeking review of the Tribunal’s order in the garb of rectification which is not permissible under the law. 5. We have heard the Ld. Respresentatives of both the parties, considered their arguments and carefully perused the Tribunal’s order dated 16.05.2021 in the main appeal being ITA No.367/PUN/2024 for AY 2018-19. We find the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR by way of the present Miscellaneous Application contended that the Tribunal’s order (supra) is not acceptable and should be recalled on the ground that the Tribunal failed to consider the case laws in support of the delay condonation application. Admittedly, the case laws were submitted by the assessee after the conclusion of the hearing. But since these were filed as directed by the Bench during the time of hearing, the Bench ought to have Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.64/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 considered the same while passing the impugned order, which according to the Ld. AR is a mistake apparent on record. 6. We have perused the Tribunal’s order (supra). The relevant findings and observations of the Tribunal in the impugned order are reproduced below for reference: “9. In view hereof, we find that the averments in the application/affidavit are vague and not corroborated by any independent evidence while no or much less sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal attributable to appellant have been submitted, except narrating the events occurred prior to culmination of revisionary proceedings. There is neither a plausible explanation in the averments nor any whisper in the entire application/affidavit regarding a single step taken by appellant to showcase the required seriousness, and not even an affirmation that the delay was undeliberate or unintentional but an accidental drive. There is lack of bona fide even in explaining the delay and even complete absence of ground for condonation. The assessee had failed to demonstrate that there was 'sufficient cause' or 'sufficient reason' behind the inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. It is also on record that, the affidavit did also fail to establish that the said delay was unintended or undeliberate in any manner. In this circumstance, we see no cogent reasons in not countenancing with the views canvassed by of the Revenue that, the true length of delay is no matter and the acceptability of explanation is the only criteria as the primary function of Tribunal is to adjudicate dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. 10. On the other hand, the facts and circumstance, contents of and reasoning laid in the affidavit placed on records for our consideration per-se capable of suggesting clearly that, the appellant assessee was not at all vigilant rather appellant was admittedly negligent in dealing with the instant appeal. In the event in our considered view the delay in filing the present appeal stands bottomless of adequate, enough & sufficient reasons. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide para 15 has summarized the law on the issue in \"Basawaraj and Anr vs- Special Land Acquisition Officer\" reported in L4 SSC BU(SC) as; 15. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the \"sufficient cause\" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature\". 12. It is the trite law that, the burden is on the party claiming condonation of delay to place before the appellate authority, in clear and explicit terms, all facts on which the party relies, so that the appellate authority/court can come to the conclusion that it is not a case of want of diligence or inaction on the part of the applicant. In the case under consideration, admittedly, the assessee has not shown any action or vigilance for a period of more than 347 days after the impugned order was served upon it. The appellant Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.64/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 assessee has not proved any inaction or negligence on the part of a third party, much less have they pleaded any action or vigilance on their own part. The assessee did not care to file the present appeal for nearly a year posterior to passing of impugned order. The averments made in the application/affidavit by the society are not corroborated by any evidence so as to establish 'sufficient cause'. Thus, the appellant assessee has failed to make out a case that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal as the assessee remained negligent and did not initiate any steps at all. Inaction and want of diligence on the part of the appellant/applicant would not entitle it to the benefit of the provisions of section 253(5) of the Act. Therefore, keeping in view the propositions of law laid down by the judicial precedents pressed into service and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of present case as discussed above, in our considered view the appellant is found to be casual, non-serious and non-vigilant in preferring/instituting the instant appeal against the impugned order. Hence, in order to avoid injustice to respondent revenue, application for condonation of delay being devoid of reasonable and sufficient cause or much less cause, merits dismissal. Consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed in- limine on the grounds of limitation.” 7. On perusal of para 9 to 12 of Tribunal’s order reproduced above, we observe that the Tribunal has given its decision based on the specific facts of the assessee’s case coupled with support drawn from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) and passed a well reasoned order dismissing the appeal of the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal. The Tribunal has passed a speaking order taking into consideration all the facts and evidences adduced by the assessee which were available on the records before it at the time of passing the impugned order. We, therefore, find it difficult to agree with the contentions of the Ld. AR. On the other hand, we agree with the contention of the Ld. DR that what the assessee is actually seeking by way of this Miscellaneous Application is the review of the Tribunal’s order in the garb of rectification which is not permissible under the law. 8. Under section 254(2) of the Act, only apparent mistake can be rectified. In this case, there is a factual finding by the Tribunal which has not been rebutted by the assessee. The Tribunal does not have any power to review its own decision/ order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2022) 440 ITR 1 (SC) at para 6 of the decision has observed as under: \"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.” Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.64/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 9. In view of the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (supra), we do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02nd December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Dipak P. Ripote) (Astha Chandra) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 02nd December, 2025. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "