2019 (3) TMI 1700 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - reasons for the delay in filing the MP - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly the present MP is filed belatedly as the order of the Tribunal was passed on 15.09.2017 and the MP was filed on 04.12.2018. Thus there is a delay of eight months and four days in filing the present MP. The coordinate bench in the matter of Karaturi Global Services 2019 (1) TMI 1596 - ITAT BANGALORE .

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the Miscellaneous Petition (MP) beyond the statutory period.
2. Tribunal's power to condone delay beyond six months.
3. Applicability of cited judgments to the present case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Miscellaneous Petition (MP):
The assessee filed a miscellaneous petition seeking rectification of an error in the Tribunal's order dated 15.09.2017. The MP was filed on 04.12.2018, resulting in a delay of eight months and four days. The Tribunal had previously dismissed a similar MP as not maintainable due to being filed beyond the statutory period of six months.

2. Tribunal's Power to Condon Delay Beyond Six Months:
The assessee's representative (Ld. AR) submitted an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay and requested the Tribunal to condone the delay. However, the Revenue's representative (Ld. DR) opposed this, arguing that the Tribunal, as a statutory body, does not have the inherent power to condone such delays. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Karaturi Global Services, which held that the Tribunal cannot condone a delay beyond the statutory period as per Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

3. Applicability of Cited Judgments to the Present Case:
The Tribunal examined several judgments cited by the assessee's representative:

- S.P. Balasubrahmanyam vs. ACIT: The Tribunal noted that this judgment did not support the assessee's case as it involved a delay of only six days, and the substantial question of law was decided against the assessee.

- CIT vs. Shri P. Venkatesan & Ors.: This case was not relevant as it dealt with the Tribunal recalling its order on merits, not with the issue of filing an MP beyond the limitation period.

- Sri Muninaga Reddy vs. ACIT: The Karnataka High Court held that the Tribunal cannot condone delays beyond six months as per Section 254(2). However, the High Court can exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to condone such delays. The Tribunal emphasized that it does not have the power to condone delays beyond the statutory period, unlike the High Court.

- N.S. Mohan vs. ITO: This judgment was also not applicable as it involved an ex-parte order being set aside by the High Court, not the issue of condoning delays in filing an MP.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that none of the cited judgments supported the assessee's case. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal held that it could not condone the delay beyond the statutory period of six months as per Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Additionally, even if the MP had been filed within the time limit, it lacked merit as the reasons for non-appearance on the hearing date were not satisfactory. Therefore, the MP filed by the assessee was dismissed as time-barred.

Order:
The MP filed by the assessee is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 29th March 2019.