SURAJ BHAN OIL,MORENA V. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR

MA 11/AGR/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Suraj Bhan Oils Pvt. Ltd., which filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of an earlier order concerning an assessment year 2005-06. The application was filed under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, claiming that the Tribunal had been misled by the Departmental Representative's submissions regarding the stock statement. The Tribunal, however, found the application not maintainable as it ventured beyond mere rectification into the realm of reviewing the merits of the case, which is not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 254(2). The Tribunal also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delay in filing the application and found the delay justifiable, thus condoning it.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772352 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) V M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Rectification of order

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 11/Agr/2022 (in ITA No.166/Agr/2017) Assessment year : 2005-06 Suraj Bhan Oils Pvt. Ltd., 95, Jeevajiganj, Morena (MP). Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Gwalior. PAN : AACCS8890F (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The case was taken up for hearing. An adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee on the ground of assessee’s counsel, being out of station. Keeping the old pendency of the year 2022, the adjournment application was rejected. The matter was heard in physical/virtual hearing. 2. Perused the records. 3. Applicant assessee has moved an application u/s. 254(2) of the Act on 25.08.2022 for rectification of order dated 05.04.2021 passed in Assessee by None Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing 18.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 11/Agr/2022 2 | P a g e revenue’s appeal No. 166/Agr/2017 for A.Y. 2005-06 on various grounds related to the merits of the case. The assessee has further filed an application for condonation of delay, stating that the time to file the miscellaneous application u/s. 254 of the Act expired on 21.06.2022. However prayed to condone the delay on the ground that in the intervening period, the assessee had been pursuing an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of Hon’ble High Court and the rectification application could not be submitted in time for want of proper legal advice. 4. We take judicial notice of the fact that most of the duration of delay caused in filing this miscellaneous application overlaps the period of spread of global pandemic COVID-19. This fact has also been taken care of by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. app. No. 21/2022 in Misc. app No. 665/2021 in suo-moto W.P(c) No. 3/2020 in civil original jurisdiction and in re-cognizance of extension of limitation with miscellaneous application No. 29/2022, in miscellaneous application No. 655/2021 in suo-moto petition(c) no. 03/2020 and vide para 5(1) of its order dated 10.01.2022, directing that its order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent order dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 11/Agr/2022 3 | P a g e after exclusion of the aforesaid duration. Therefore, the period from the date of impugned order, i.e., 05.04.2021 to 28.02.2022 already stood excluded from the period of limitation. Hence, the limitation for the present miscellaneous application begins from 01.03.2022 and the rectification application has been moved on 25.08.2022 well within the period of six months. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in view of aforesaid order of Hon’ble apex court, the said delay in filing this miscellaneous application stands condoned. 5. As regards assessee’s application u/s. 253(2) of the Act, the application is very exhaustive, containing argumentative facts of the case detailed in as much as 7 pages, stating that the addition that has been confirmed by the Tribunal in respect of stock statement, is based on misguidance in DR’s submissions etc. 6. The scope of section 254(2) of the Act has been examined by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, vide order dated 06.11.1992 passed in Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) V M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited, reported in [1993] 203 ITR, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “ Under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal may, \"with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record\", amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) within the time prescribed therein. It is an accepted position that the Appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the pro visions of the Act. The only power which the Tribunal possesses is to rectify any mistake in its own order which is apparent from the record. This is merely a power of amending its order. The Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 11/Agr/2022 4 | P a g e power of rectification under section 254(2) can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. The Tribunal cannot, in the exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion” 7. Hon’ble Supreme court, vide order dated 03.12.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7110 of 2021, Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) V M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited, vide para 3.2 and 6 has held as under: “3.2 Having gone through both the orders passed by the ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. While allowing the application under Section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013, it appears that the ITAT has re-heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record only. Therefore, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. While considering the application under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. 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 MA No. 11/Agr/2022 5 | P a g e Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may. pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case.” 8. In view of aforesaid legal position, the miscellaneous application is, thus, not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.08.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "