2020 (5) TMI 406 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - eligibility for deduction u/s 80P - DR further submitted that the Tribunal did not considered CBDT s Circular No. 6/2010 dated 20.09.2010 which clarified and Circular No. 319 dated 11.01.1982 deeming RRB s to be cooperative societies stands withdrawn for application with effect from 2007-08 - HELD THAT - Order was passed on 18.09.2018 therefore, the Misc. Application ought to have been filed on or before 31.03.2019, but the Revenue filed the Misc. application on 10.04.2019. Present Misc. Application is time barred. The revenue has not made the case that the Misc. Application is filed within the stipulated time limit given under the Act. Besides this, the appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed off on merits and department has not filed any appeal before the Hon ble High Court. Order has attained finality. The Circular No. 6/2010 dated 20.09.2010 which has been taken in grounds of appeal is not applicable in the present case as the assessee is a Co-operative Society and is not a Regional Rural Bank. This circular has withdrawn the benefit of Sec. 80P in case of RRB s only. The decision in CAVALIER TRADING PVT. LTD., KALPIT TRADING PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - OSD-II, CENTRAL RANGE 7 ANR. 2020 (2) TMI 271 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT also supports the case of the assessee, since the present Misc. Application is barred by limitation. The department is seeking judicial review of the order passed by the Tribunal which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. We have considered all the aspects in the order dated 18.09.2018. The Ld. DR could not point out any apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal, therefore, there is no need to rectify the order. Thus, Misc. Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Consideration of exceptions under CBDT's Circular
- Barred by limitation under Sec. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Applicability of Circular No. 6/2010 dated 20.09.2010
- Seeking judicial review of the order passed by the Tribunal

Analysis:
1. Consideration of exceptions under CBDT's Circular:
The issue revolved around the Tribunal's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal based on a low monetary limit without delving into the exceptions outlined in CBDT's Circulars. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal failed to consider various Circulars and orders, emphasizing the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the Tribunal found no apparent mistake in its order and concluded that there was no need for rectification. The Revenue's arguments did not establish any clear error in the Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Application.

2. Barred by limitation under Sec. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Ld. AR contended that the Miscellaneous Application was time-barred as per Sec. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order was passed on 18.09.2018, requiring the application to be filed by 31.03.2019. However, the Revenue filed the application on 10.04.2019, exceeding the stipulated time limit. The Tribunal concurred with this argument, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory timelines. As the application was not filed within the prescribed period, it was deemed time-barred, leading to its dismissal.

3. Applicability of Circular No. 6/2010 dated 20.09.2010:
The Ld. AR emphasized that Circular No. 6/2010 dated 20.09.2010, which withdrew the benefit of Sec. 80P for Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) only, was not applicable to the present case involving a Cooperative Society. Citing a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the AR argued against the Revenue's attempt to seek judicial review of the Tribunal's order, asserting that such review was impermissible under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld this argument, reinforcing that the Circular did not affect Cooperative Societies, thereby supporting the dismissal of the Revenue's application.

4. Seeking judicial review of the order passed by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's attempt to seek judicial review of its order, highlighting that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any manifest error in the Tribunal's decision. Referring to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling, the Tribunal reiterated that seeking a review for re-hearing was not permissible in law. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue, emphasizing the finality of its order and the lack of grounds for rectification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application, emphasizing the adherence to statutory timelines, the inapplicability of certain Circulars to Cooperative Societies, and the impermissibility of seeking judicial review without substantial grounds for rectification.