2013 (4) TMI 396 - HC - Income Tax

Non consideration of all grounds of appeal - as per assessee Tribunal had only dealt with the first ground relating to the rejection of the claim for a deduction under Sections 80HH, 80I and 80IA on the LPG plants - Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to the A.O. to give effect to the order of the Tribunal as if all grounds of appeal have been set aside for fresh adjudication - Held that - The Petitioner had a remedy under Section 254(2) under which the Appellate Tribunal is empowered at any time, within four years from the date of its order, to amend any order passed by it under sub Section (1) with a view to rectify any mistake apparent on the record, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the A.O. The Petitioner admittedly did not file any application under Section 254(2) and the period of four years for filing such an application has now elapsed. The petition has been filed almost five and a half years after the order of the Tribunal with no reasonable or cogent explanation for the delay. As we have noted already, there is no merit in the alternate submission that the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007 left open all the grounds of appeal. Plainly that was not so. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the legality of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal over five years ago; Seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to give effect to the Tribunal's order; Interpretation of the Tribunal's order dated 28 May 2007; Delay in challenging the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to challenge an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal over five years ago, questioning the denial of a deduction under Sections 80HH, 80I, and 80IA of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1998-99. The Tribunal's order dated 28 May 2007 set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication before the Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal only addressed one of the three grounds raised in the appeal, leading to confusion regarding the remaining grounds. The delay in challenging the Tribunal's order was attributed to a misunderstanding regarding the Tribunal's decision, which was clarified in 2012, prompting the filing of the petition.

The High Court noted that the Tribunal's order specifically dealt with the denial of the deduction under Sections 80HH, 80I, and 80IA, and did not leave all grounds of appeal open for fresh adjudication. The petitioner could have utilized Section 254(2) to rectify any mistake apparent on the record within four years of the Tribunal's order but failed to do so. The Court emphasized that the delay in challenging the Tribunal's order, without a valid explanation, did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Despite the petitioner's contentions regarding internal staffing changes affecting the handling of the case, the Court found no justification for the delay in challenging the Tribunal's order. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the statutory remedy under Section 254(2) could have been pursued within the stipulated timeframe. The Court concluded that the petition, filed over five years after the Tribunal's order, lacked merit and did not justify setting aside the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, highlighting the absence of a valid explanation for the delay in challenging the Tribunal's order and emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies within the prescribed timeframe. The Court found no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the circumstances surrounding the case and the petitioner's failure to pursue available remedies in a timely manner.