2024 (9) TMI 1127 - HC - Income Tax

Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) for condonation of delay - HELD THAT - As in S. B. Singersingh and Sons 1969 (8) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where the Court held, even its express power to review its orders is not conferred by a statute, a Court or a Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to rectify a wrong committed by itself when that wrong causes prejudice to a party for what that party is not responsible . Again this would not be applicable into the facts of this case because the ITAT has not committed any wrong in rejecting the Miscellaneous Application on the basis that it has no power to condone the delay. There is no provision in Section 254 or any other section which provides for condonation of delay beyond six months. In the circumstances, for reasons recorded by us no sufficient cause is shown for the delay. We have observed Petitioner was not only negligent but also lacked bonafides. Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Issues:
1. Impugning an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal due to delay.
2. Interpretation of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding condonation of delay.
3. Comparison of judgments from Karnataka High Court and Bombay High Court on condonation of delay.
4. Reference to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court regarding inherent jurisdiction to rectify a wrong.
5. Examination of Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for provisions on condonation of delay.
6. Assessment of the delay in the case and the petitioner's conduct.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Petition was filed to challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) due to a delay of 1279 days. The ITAT dismissed the Miscellaneous Application due to the absence of a provision in Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allowing for the condonation of such a delay. The High Court agreed with the ITAT's decision, stating that Section 254 does not provide for condonation of delay, thus finding no error in the ITAT's interpretation of the law.

2. The High Court determined that since the ITAT did not err in its interpretation of the law regarding the condonation of delay, the Writ Petition should not be entertained on this ground alone. The court emphasized that the ITAT's decision was based on a correct understanding of the legal provisions.

3. The petitioner relied on judgments from the Karnataka High Court and the Bombay High Court to argue for the condonation of the delay. However, the High Court differentiated the facts of those cases from the present situation, concluding that the judgments cited were not applicable to the current case, where the ITAT had not erred in rejecting the Miscellaneous Application.

4. Reference was made to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court regarding the inherent jurisdiction of a court or tribunal to rectify a wrong causing prejudice to a party. However, the High Court found that this reference was not relevant to the present case, as the ITAT did not commit any error in rejecting the application due to the absence of power to condone the delay.

5. The High Court examined Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which does not contain any provision for the condonation of delay beyond six months. The court highlighted the lack of statutory provisions allowing for the extension of the time limit for condonation of delay, reinforcing the ITAT's decision not to entertain the Miscellaneous Application due to the significant delay.

6. In assessing the delay in the case and the petitioner's conduct, the High Court found no sufficient cause for the delay. The court noted the petitioner's negligence and lack of bonafides, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition without any order as to costs. The decision was based on the petitioner's failure to demonstrate a valid reason for the prolonged delay in filing the application.

← Previous Next →