SRI.T.G. CHANDRAKUMAR,THRISSUR V. THE DCIT,CEN-CIRCLE, THRISSUR

MA 35/COCH/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a miscellaneous petition filed by T.G. Chandrakumar, the assessee, seeking to condone the mistake of withdrawing a cross objection related to the assessment year 2008-09. Initially, the cross objection was withdrawn on 19.11.2019 during a hearing for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee later realized this withdrawal was a mistake only on 31.01.2023, leading to the filing of the current miscellaneous application. The Tribunal found the application to be time-barred as it was filed beyond the six-month period allowed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, leading to its dismissal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34392 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Other Referred Cases: A.S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT (Investigation), Arvindbhai H. Shah V. ACIT, Ms. Shamsunissa Begum V. DCIT, Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd. V. ACIT, ACIT Vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 254(2); 101

Judgement Text

"MP No.35/Coch/2023 T.G. Chandrakumar, Thrisuur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP No.35/Coch/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.67/Coch/2018& CO No.54/Coch/2018) AssessmentYear:2008-09 T.G. Chandrakumar Prasunam Sree Ramakrishna Ashram Lane Punkunnam Thrissur 680 002 Kerala PAN No.AABAK3830E Vs. DCIT Central Circle-1 Thrissur APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 O R D E R PERKESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This miscellaneous petition filed by the assesseerequesting to condone the mistake of withdrawing the cross objection filed for the AY 2008-09 and to call back the order dated 19.11.2019 withdrawing the cross objection and to give an opportunity for considering the cross objection in relation to the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No. 67/Coch/2018 dated 03.04.2023. 2. On going through the miscellaneous petition, we find that the assessee claimed to have filed the cross objection on 03.09.2018 in connection with the appeal filed by the Revenue on 02.03.2018 for MP No.35/Coch/2023 T.G. Chandrakumar, Thrisuur Page 2 of 3 the AY 2008-09. However, on 19.11.2019, at the time of hearing for the AY 2007-08, the counsel for the assessee sought for permission to withdraw the cross objections filed by the assessee and accordingly, the assessee’s cross objections for both the AY 2007- 08 and 2008-09 were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.11.2019. 2.1 Now by way of this miscellaneous application the assessee claimed that this withdrawal of cross objection for AY 2008-09 is only by a mistake and this mistake came to the notice of the assessee only on 31.01.2023 when the appeal no. 67/COCH/2018 was considered. 3. On going through the miscellaneous petition, we observed that this MAfiled by the assessee with a prayer to condone the mistake of withdrawing the cross objection filed for the AY 2008-09 and to call back the order dated 19.11.2019 withdrawing the cross objectionis beyond the period prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Act. It is not the case of the assessee that order of dismissal dated 19.11.2019 was received on 31.01.2023. We are of the opinion that the miscellaneous application to condone the mistake of withdrawing the cross objection should have been filed within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed dismissing the cross objection as withdrawn i.e. upto 31.05.2020. 4. We are of the opinion that this MA is filed belatedly beyond 6 months from the end of the month in which order was communicated to the respective parties. Hence, the Tribunal has no power u/s 254(2) of the Act to condone the delay since this MA is filed beyond the time allowed under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. In holding so, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements: MP No.35/Coch/2023 T.G. Chandrakumar, Thrisuur Page 3 of 3  A.S. Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT (Investigation) reported in (2018) 300 ITR 96 (Kar.)  Arvindbhai H. Shah V. ACIT (2004) 91 ITD 101 (Ahd.)(SB)  Ms. Shamsunissa Begum V. DCIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 96 (Bangalore Trib.)  Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd. V. ACIT (2009) 120 ITD 481 (Delhi)  ACIT Vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair (2010) 193 Taxman 28 (Cochin) (MAG) 4.1 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decisions cited above, we hold that the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s. 254(2) of the Act and is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed being barred by limitation. 5. In the result, the MA filed by the assesseeis dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th Mar, 2025 Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) JudicialMember Bangalore, Dated 24th Mar, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Cochin "