SMT. REKHABEN CHANDUBHAI RAMESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

MA 4/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Rekhaben Chandubhai Rameshbhai Patel, who filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking rectification of a Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The original Tribunal order allowed the assessee's appeal, but the assessee later sought to amend this order to reflect changes related to the Vivad-Se-Viswas Scheme, 2020. The MA was filed significantly late, and the Tribunal found the reasons for the delay insufficient. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the issues raised in the MA were not addressed in the original appeal, leading to the dismissal of the MA.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716559 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Amit Cotton Industries (2022) 136 taxmnn.com 328 (SC), T. Krishna (2012) 21 taxmann.com 383, CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., 440 ITR 1 (SC), ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 305 ITR 227 (SC), Niranjan & Co. Ltd. vs. ITAT, 122 ITR 519 (Cal.)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEERJA SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: TINISH MODY; A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.4/SRT/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.1304/Ahd/2017) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) Smt. Rekhaben Chandubhai Rameshbhai Patel, 6, Narayan Muni Society, Swaminarayan Gurukul, Nani Ved, Ved Road, Surat Vs. ITO, Ward – 2(2)(4), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CJRPP7666R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Tinish Mody, CA Respondent by Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 18/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This Miscellaneous Application (in short, MA’) is filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the Tribunal order in ITA No.1304/Ahd/2017, dated 24.03.2023 for assessment years (AY) 2008-09 u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). 2. The MA filed by the assessee is late by 501 days in terms of provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee has filed an application giving reasons for delays in filing appeal before this Tribunal. He submitted that the ITA No.1304/Ahd/2017 was passed on 24.03.2023 and the Tribunal allowed the appeal in terms of direction Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.4/SRT/2025/AY.2008-09 Rekhaben Chandubhai Rameshbhai Patel mentioned at para 6 of the said order. On the basis of Tribunal order dated 24.03.2023, the assessee requested the AO to accept the Form No.1 and 2 of the Vivad-Se-Viswas Scheme, 2020 (in short, ‘VSVS, 2020’) by adopting share of the assessee as 1/32nd. The online service order was communicated on 28.01.2025 along with rejection of application filed under VSVS, 2020 (in Hindi Version). Hence, the assessee had no other option but to file MA before this Tribunal. The ld. AR requested to condone the delay of 500 days in the interest of justice. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue opposed the prayer of ld. AR. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee has filed MA after a delay of 501 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the assessee has submitted that the delay was due to receipt of the online service of order dated 28.01.2025 from the department regarding rejection of application filed under DTVSV, 2020 for AY.2008-09. Hence, the MA was filed on 12.02.2025. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has explained the reasons for delay was due to rejection of its application under DTVSVS, 2020 and not any mistake apparent from the order of ITAT, dated 24.03.2023. As per section 254(2), the application should have been filed within six months from the end of the month in which the order of ITAT was passed. Therefore, the MA should have been filed by 30.09.2023, but Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.4/SRT/2025/AY.2008-09 Rekhaben Chandubhai Rameshbhai Patel it has been filed after a delay of 501 days. The reasons given by the appellant would not constitute “sufficient cause” for the delay in filling the MA. The appellant was required to be vigilant and alert in filing MA after receipt of the order of ITAT. The explanation given by the ld. AR in his application is not at all acceptable. Such assertion in only a feeble attempt to explain away the inordinate delay in filing MA. Such negligent, casual and lackadaisical approach to file MA cannot constitute “sufficient cause”. In the case of Amit Cotton Industries (2022) 136 taxmnn.com 328 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that delay of 520 days in filling SLP cannot be condoned without satisfactory explanation. The ITAT, Hyderabad in case of T. Krishna (2012) 21 taxmann.com 383 held that in condoning delay in filling appeal, it must be proved beyond shadow of doubt that assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. Accordingly, looking into the facts highlighted above and the precedents cited supra, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 501 days in filling of the present MA. 5. Be that as it may, we also do not find any merit in the MA filed by the assessee. The appellant had filed appeal before this Tribunal on 30.05.2017 and the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 1304/Ahd/2017, dated 24.03.2023. The appellant could have no grievance because the appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. The appellant in the MA has requested that the order of the Tribunal is required to be amended by treating Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.4/SRT/2025/AY.2008-09 Rekhaben Chandubhai Rameshbhai Patel it as ‘withdrawn’ and further directing the AO and ld. PCIT to accept Form No.1 and 2 of VSVS, 2020 of the assessee and also directing the ld. PCIT to further amend Form No.3, accepting revised total income at Rs.12,75,930/- by adopting the share of assessee as 1/32nd. These issues were not before the Tribunal in the impugned appeal. Therefore, the appeal could not have been decided incorporating the prayer made by the appellant in the instant MA. 5.1 It is further seen from the record that the case was fixed for hearing on 20.02.2021, 26.03.2021, 27.05.2021, 03.08.2021, 26.08.2021, 28.10.2021, 17.01.2022, 05.04.2022, 21.06.2022, 01.09.2022, 30.09.2023, 28.12.2022, 01.03.2023, 07.03.2023, 20.03.2023 and 22.03.2023. The appellant had filed letters dated 20.02.2021 and 13.01.2022 with request to adjourn the hearings because assessee had opted for VSVS, 2020. In the latest letter dated 13.01.2022, it had requested to adjournment for two months, i.e., upto March, 2022. The request for adjournments were favourably considered on 15 occasions and the case was finally heard on 22.03.2023. There was no request for withdrawal of appeal by the assessee due to VSVS, 2020. Hence, there was no question of dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. The appeal was allowed after considering the facts of the case and the submission of the assessee by a speaking order. There is no mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., 440 ITR 1 (SC) held that while Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.4/SRT/2025/AY.2008-09 Rekhaben Chandubhai Rameshbhai Patel considering application u/s 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal is not required to revisit its original order and go into details on merits and completely recall its order as powers under provisions of section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 305 ITR 227 (SC) held that an error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the record means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need a long-drawn-out process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its correctness. If the view accepted by the Court in the original judgment is one of possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the records. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Niranjan & Co. Ltd. vs. ITAT, 122 ITR 519 (Cal.) held that u/s 254(2), the Tribunal has jurisdiction only to rectify mistakes apparent from record that are brought to its notice. It cannot review its earlier order. It cannot go into the merits of the appeal again and come to a finding that the order was sound even on the basis of materials sought to be relied on. In the present case, the appellant is canvassing to reverse the order made by the Tribunal and not rectify any mistakes apparent from record. In view of the facts discussed above and the authoritative precedents, we do not find any Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No.4/SRT/2025/AY.2008-09 Rekhaben Chandubhai Rameshbhai Patel merit in the MA filed by the assessee. We do not find any mistake which could be said to be apparent within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, MA is hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 18/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 18/08/2025 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "