2021 (7) TMI 1374 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - period of limitation - HELD THAT - As noted that delay of 195 days in filing MA before the ITAT is attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic. The assessee has also referred to Hon ble Supreme Court decision dated March 8th 2021 wherein it has been expounded that in computing the period of limitation for any suit application or proceedings the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall be excluded - MA is duly admitted.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent from record in the order of consolidated ITA Nos. 2806/M/2018, 2807/M/2018 & 2805/M/2018 for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Delay in filing Miscellaneous Application (MA) due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Analysis:
The assessee sought rectification of a mistake apparent from the record in the consolidated order for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The assessee, engaged in trading in metal and alloys, challenged the assessment order passed by the DCIT Central Circle 2(3), Mumbai. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal)-48 Mumbai upheld the additions made by the AO. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai, raising grounds related to the validity of the reopening of the case and the issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, among others. The ITAT decided the appeal on merits without addressing the jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee.

The delay of 195 days in filing the MA was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a decision dated March 8th, 2021, excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application, or proceeding. Consequently, the MA was admitted based on the law declared by the Supreme Court.

Regarding the merits of the application, the ITAT had not adjudicated the assessee's grounds of appeal concerning the validity of the jurisdiction for passing the assessment order. The ITAT's order stated that since the additions on merits were deleted, the consideration of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was of academic interest only. As the ITAT did not address this issue, there was a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the appeals were recalled solely to consider the unadjudicated challenge to the jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the MAs were allowed, and the cases were directed to be fixed for hearing to consider the issue of the validity of jurisdiction for assessment that remained unadjudicated.