SHRI PRAKASH SHRIMALI PROP. HI-TECH EARTH MOVERS,UDAIPUR V. ACIT, UDAIPUR

MA 1/JODH/2018

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, Shri Prakash Shrimali, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in 2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. The application sought to rectify the earlier order, claiming an apparent mistake, but was filed significantly beyond the six-month statutory limit. The assessee attributed the delay to prolonged illness and hospitalization, supported by medical records. However, the Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts, ruled that it could not entertain the application due to the lack of statutory provision extending the limitation period under the Income Tax Act, despite the provisions of the Limitation Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398042 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: Karuturi Global Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 116 taxmann.com 924, Leena Power Tech Engineers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2023) 172 taxmann.com 424
• Laws Referred To: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARNI DAN
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV SISODIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM &DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM Miscellaneous Application No. 01/JODH/2018 In आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 134/JODH/2013 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Prakash Shrimali Prop. Hi tech Earth Movers, 6- Municipal Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Udaipur(Raj)-313001 बनाम The ACIT, Circle-1, Udaipur(Raj) ˕ायीलेखासं./PAN NO: ADSPS9139F अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Sisodia, Advocate राज᭭व कᳱ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. DR) सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/05/2025 उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 02/06/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: The present miscellaneous application is filed by the assessee in ITA No. 134/Jodh/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 against the order passed by the Tribunal on 30th October 2013 was filed by the assessee on 29/05/2018. The application is accompanied by an affidavit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of more than five years in filing the miscellaneous application. 2. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the delay occurred due to the prolonged illness of the assessee, who remained hospitalized for a substantial period. In support, the Ld. AR placed reliance on medical records. It was argued that if given an opportunity, the assessee would be able to demonstrate an apparent mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the delay may kindly be condoned. 2 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the condonation plea, relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karuturi Global Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 116 taxmann.com 924 and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Leena Power Tech Engineers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2023) 172 taxmann.com 424, to argue that the Tribunal has no power to entertain a miscellaneous application beyond six months as stipulated under Section 254(2) of the Act. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The order sought to be rectified was passed by the Tribunal on 30th October 2013, whereas the present application was filed on 29/05/2018. Thus, the application is filed beyond the prescribed limitation of six months under Section 254(2) of the Act. 4.1 The Tribunal, being a creature of statute, cannot assume jurisdiction beyond the statutory limits. Section 254(2) mandates that rectification applications must be filed within six months from the date of the order. In the absence of any specific statutory provision extending the limitation under the Income Tax Act, the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone such delay. 4.2 Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Karuturi Global Ltd. (supra) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Leena Power Tech Engineers Ltd. (supra), we hold that the present application, being grossly time-barred, is not maintainable. 3 5. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay and the miscellaneous application are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/06/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AG Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "