VAB INDUSTRIES LLP,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

MA 21/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves VAB Industries LLP, the appellant, who filed an application under Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, seeking to recall an ex-parte order due to the appellant's inability to attend the hearing on 18/12/2023 because of ill health. The Departmental Representative objected to the maintainability of the application, citing a delay of 261 days, which they argued was beyond the permissible limit under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal, referencing a similar case (Om Prakash Sangwan vs. ITO), found that applications under Rule 24 do not have a stipulated period of limitation and thus allowed the recall of the ex-parte order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360993 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"आयर अपीलȣय Ûयायाͬधकरण मɅ, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बɅच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Įी मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदèय एवं Įी रवीश सूद, माननीय ÛयाǓयक सदèय SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 21/Hyd/2025 (आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.431/Hyd/2023) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) VAB Industries LLP, Hyderabad PAN: AAQFV2349R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलाथŎ/ Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent) करदाता का Ůितिनिधȕ/ Assessee Represented by : Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA राजˢ का Ůितिनिधȕ/ Department Represented by : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. LD.AR सुनवाई समाɑ होने की ितिथ/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 16.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 O R D E R Ůित रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M. The present application filed by the assessee-applicant under Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (marked as Miscellaneous Application by the Registry) on 18/03/2025 arises from the order 2 passed by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 431/Hyd/2023, dated 20/12/2023. 2. At the threshold, the Learned Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) objected to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. DR submitted that as the filing of the present application by reckoning the time limit as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Act involves a delay of 261 days, therefore, the same on the said ground itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 3. Per contra, the learned Authorized Representative (in short “ld.AR”) submitted that as the application filed by the assessee applicant is not a “Miscellaneous Application” filed under sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Act, but an application filed under Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, therefore, the contention of the Ld. DR that the same is not maintainable on account of the delay therein involved is based on misconceived facts. The ld.AR to buttress his claim has taken us through Rule 24 (supra) and section 254(2) of the Act. 4. We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid issue ie., the maintainability of the application filed by the appellant under Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 5. Before we proceed further, we deem it fit to cull out Rule 24 (supra), which reads as under: 3 “Rule-24:- [Hearing of appeal ex-parte for default by the appellant [Substituted by the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Amendment Rules, 1987 (w.e.f. 1st August, 1987)] - Where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent : Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal.]” 6. As an application under Rule 24 (supra) is undeniably not a Miscellaneous Application filed under section 254(2) of the Act, therefore, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s claim that the maintainability of the same would not be jeopardized on account of the impugned delay as had been so canvassed by the Ld. D.R. before us. Our aforesaid conviction is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Om Prakash Sangwan vs. ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi [2018] 94 taxmann.com 394 (Delhi), which though was rendered in the context of pari materia Rule 25 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under: “In the given circumstances and keeping in view that Rule 25 does not stipulate any period of limitation without which the aggrieved party can approach the Tribunal, it is open to the appellant to approach the Tribunal with a suitable application for restoration of the appeals; in such event, the appeals could be considered on their merits an decided in accordance with law after hearing both the parties, provided, the application is presented before the ITAT within thirty days from today.” 4 7. Be that as it may, we find no substance in the Ld. DR’s contention that the application filed by the assessee beyond the prescribed period contemplated U/s. 254(2) of the Act is not maintainable and proceed with to adjudicate the application on merits. 8. On a perusal of the subject application, it transpires that the assessee-applicant has sought for recalling of the order, for the reason, that due to ill-health he could not put up an appearance when the matter was fixed for hearing before the Tribunal i.e., on 18/12/2023. The ld. AR has supported his aforesaid claim by placing on record an “affidavit” of even date. 9. Ostensibly, the ld.AR has claimed that though he had regularly participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal i.e., when the same was fixed for hearing, but on the subject date i.e on 18.12.2013 he could not affect necessary compliance due to ill health. The ld.AR submitted that as the failure to participate in the appellate proceedings had occasioned for bonafide reasons and compelling circumstances, therefore, the ex-parte order passed by the Tribunal in all fairness be recalled under Rule 24 (supra). 10. Per contra, the ld. DR objected to the seeking of restoration of the appeal. 11. We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid facts, and are of the view that as there is a justifiable reason explaining the failure on 5 the part of the assessee appellant to participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal on the last occasion when the matter was posted for hearing i.e., on 18/12/2023, therefore, the matter in all fairness as per the “proviso” to Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 merits to be restored. 12. Resultantly, the application filed by the assessee applicant is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. The registry is directed to fix the matter for hearing in the regular course after putting both the parties to notice. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st May, 2025. Sd/- S/- Sd/- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- Sd/- (Įी रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) Ɋाियक सद˟/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- Hyderabad, dated .05.2025. *OKK/SPS आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. िनधाŊįरती/The Assessee : (i)VAB Industries LLP, 6-3-655/2/3, P. Murali & Co Chartered Accountants, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500082. (ii)VAB Industries LLP C/o. B. Vithlani & Co., CA, 8-2- 120/86/9A/34, Sarama Towers, 1st Floor, Rao & Raju Colony, Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2. राजˢ/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 6 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गाडŊफ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad By Order "