9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1618 - AT - Income TaxSecond Rectification application u/s 254 - First Misc. Application has been considered rejected - Validation of payments made towards ESI and EPF within due dates - HELD THAT - During the course of hearing the assessee vehemently contended that the assessee had submitted the challans for the payment of ESI and EPF at the time of hearing but we found that except 3CB 3CD Report Salary Paid Ledger nothing is available on record therefore the plea of the AR of the Assessee that the issue may be remanded for the limited purpose of verifying the challans submitted at the time of hearing of the appeal on 17.04.2024 so as to render substantial justice cannot be accepted. We also found that this Misc. Application although filed within 6 months from the end of the month in which the order was passed but the assessee has raised the same ground as that of the first Misc Application. Since we have already adjudicated the same while passing Order in first MA the grounds once again raised in the present M.A is not maintainable. As relying on Smt. Vasantben H. Sheth 2014 (8) TMI 487 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT we cannot entertain the second Misc. Application again on the same Grounds when once the First Misc. Application has been considered rejected by us. We reiterate that the AO shall pass the consequential Order in compliance with Order of the Tribunal in the case of Manikandan Vazhukkapara Kumaran 2023 (11) TMI 1294 - ITAT BANGALORE .
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the second Miscellaneous Application (MA) under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Rectification of the original order of the Tribunal dated 27.06.2024. 3. Verification of payments made towards ESI and EPF within due dates. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Maintainability of the Second Miscellaneous Application (MA): The Tribunal examined whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain the second Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed by the assessee on the same grounds as the first MA, which had already been disposed of. The learned D.R. argued that the second MA on the same grounds is not maintainable and should be dismissed in limine. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Smt. Vasantben H. Sheth, which held that a statutory authority cannot exercise the power of review unless expressly conferred. The Tribunal also cited similar decisions from the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Madras High Court, and Kerala High Court, which consistently held that once a rectification application has been decided, a second application on the same grounds is not maintainable. Based on these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that it could not entertain the second MA on the same grounds and dismissed the application. 2. Rectification of the Original Order of the Tribunal Dated 27.06.2024: The assessee sought rectification of the Tribunal's original order dated 27.06.2024, arguing that the Tribunal had erroneously relied on the judgment in ITA No. 577/BANG/2023 instead of the more recent judgment in ITA No. 806/BANG/2023, which had remitted a similar matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the first MA had already been disposed of by a conscious decision that the original order was not based on erroneous facts or non-appreciation of facts on record. The Tribunal reiterated that it could not review its order through a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Act. 3. Verification of Payments Made Towards ESI and EPF Within Due Dates: The assessee contended that certain amounts of ESI and EPF were paid within the due dates stipulated in the respective Acts and that the issue should be remanded for the limited purpose of verifying the challans submitted. The Tribunal found that except for the 3CB & 3CD Report and Salary Paid Ledger, no other evidence was available on record to support the assessee's claim. The Tribunal held that since the same grounds were raised in the first MA and had already been adjudicated, the plea for remanding the issue for verification could not be accepted in the second MA. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the second Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, holding that it was not maintainable as the same grounds had already been dealt with in the first MA. The Tribunal emphasized that it could not entertain a second MA on the same issue once it had been considered and rejected. The Tribunal also reiterated that the Assessing Officer should pass the consequential order in compliance with the Tribunal's earlier decision in the case of Manikandan Vazhukkapara Kumaran in ITA No. 577/BANG/2023. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open Court on 12th August 2024.
|
