UPENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JAGDALPUR, BASTAR

MA 14/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Upendra Singh Chauhan, the appellant, who filed a miscellaneous application seeking to recall the Tribunal's order dated 20.10.2023, which dismissed his appeal due to an alleged inordinate delay of 8 years. The appellant argued that there was no delay as he filed the appeal immediately after obtaining a certified copy of the order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal, however, found that the application was essentially seeking a review of its earlier decision, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court judgments to support its decision, emphasizing that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469776 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company, 203 ITR 497 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.R. RAO
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Rectification of order
• Section: 254(2); 10

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.14/RPR/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.192/RPR/2023) Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2009-10 Upendra Singh Chauhan Naya Para, Jagdalpur (C.G.)-494 001 PAN: AFUPC3193D .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer Jagdalpur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.R. Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 21.03.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 2 MA No.14/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee arising out of ITA No.192/RPR/2023 for assessment years 2009- 10 u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) with a prayer to recall the order of Tribunal dated 20.10.2023. 2. The assessee by filing the captioned miscellaneous application submitted as follows: (relevant extract) “1. That Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur had dismissed appellant's appeal in ITA No. 192/ RPR/2023 on the ground that there is no bona fide reason explaining inordinate delay of 8 years involved in filing the appeal. 2. That while dismissing the appeal, the Hon'ble Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not served upon the appellant and he had obtained certified copy of the order and filed the appeal and there is no delay in filing the appeal. 3. That revenue, excepting opposing admission of appeal on the grounds of delay, did not refute appellant's submission that the appeal order was not served upon the appellant and the appeal was filed only after obtaining certified copy of the order and there is no delay in filing the appeal, though application for condonation of delay was filed as a matter of abundant precaution. 4. That since the appeal was filed on 19/05/2023 after obtaining certified copy of impugned order on 08/05/2023, there is no delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, as per appellant's humble understanding, dismissal of the appeal solely on the basis of assumption without any rebuttal of the fact of filing the appeal after obtaining certified copy of order of learned CIT(A) constitutes mistake apparent from record and the 3 MA No.14/RPR/2024 appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to recall the order and admit the appeal for adjudication in the interest of justice.” 3. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short “DR’) submitted that as the assessee had filed the appeal by a delay of 8 years (approx.) and there were no justifiable reasons leading to the same, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation. It was further submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the Ld. Counsel for the assessee had failed to point out any mistake apparent from record which is rectifiable u/s.254(2) of the Act, therefore, the present miscellaneous application filed by the assessee cannot be accepted, and is liable to be rejected. 4. I have heard the parties herein, considered the contents in the miscellaneous application along with the Tribunal order. That on a perusal of the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No.192/RPR/2023, dated 20.10.2023, I find that the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the assessee observed that there were no justifiable reasons leading to the delay of 8 years (approx.) which could be condoned by it. Accordingly, the Tribunal was of the view that as the delay involved in the appeal was inordinate and substantial, therefore, the same could not be summarily condoned. Further, I find that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay by relying on various judicial 4 MA No.14/RPR/2024 pronouncements. Accordingly, I am of the view that the assessee applicant had failed to point out any mistake apparent from the record and in the garb of the aforesaid miscellaneous application, he is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.192/RPR/2023, dated 20.10.2023, which is beyond the scope of its powers as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. My aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: \" ....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record........\" Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it was held as under: \"From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become 5 MA No.14/RPR/2024 functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 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. 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.\" 5. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company reported as 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) has held that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record itself and not rectification in error of judgment. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under: “The Tribunal cannot, in exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from the record itself.” 6 MA No.14/RPR/2024 6. I, therefore, in terms of the aforesaid observations, is of the considered view that the assessee in the garb of the present application filed u/s. 254(2) of the Act seeks for a review of the order so passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal, which does not fall within the realm of the powers vested with it u/s.254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee u/s.254(2) of the Act is dismissed as per above terms. 7. In the result, miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 25th day of March, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 25th March, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur "