2015 (9) TMI 164 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - The order of the ITAT has been passed on 3rd September, 2010 and the MA No. has been preferred on 24.1.2014, after a lapse of more than three years, but filed on 28.8.2014. There was clear admission by the DR at the time of hearing the appeal that the Department has not preferred an application to COD even. There is no explanation on that, even though the Hon ble Supreme Court has withdrawn the constitution of COD by the above order. The inordinate delay cannot be condoned and, therefore, we dismiss the MA filed by the Revenue. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of Tribunal order in ITA No. 793/Hyd/2007 dated 30th September, 2010.
2. Applicability of Supreme Court's decision in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others on the Tribunal's order.
3. Prospective effect of the Supreme Court's judgment on the present Revenue appeal.
4. Timeliness of the Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed by the Department.

Analysis:
1. The Miscellaneous Application (MA) sought the recall of the Tribunal order in ITA No. 793/Hyd/2007 dated 30th September, 2010. The DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad filed the MA as the jurisdictional authority over the assessee, State Bank of Hyderabad. The original assessment for A.Y. 2001-02 was made under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, determining the total income at Rs. 415,53,62,126. Subsequent appeals by the assessee and the Revenue led to the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal due to lack of approval from the COD.

2. The Department's DR argued for the recall of the Tribunal's order based on the Supreme Court's decision in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Union of India & Others. The DR emphasized the need for fresh consideration and disposal of the appeal on merit. However, the counsel for the assessee contended that the Supreme Court's judgment should have only prospective effect and cannot be applied retrospectively to the Revenue appeal. The timing of the Tribunal's order and the Supreme Court's decision was highlighted as a crucial factor.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. It noted the significant delay in filing the MA, more than three years after the Tribunal's order, and the absence of an application to the COD by the Department. Despite the DR's admission of not pursuing COD approval, the Tribunal found no valid explanation for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the inordinate delay could not be condoned and subsequently dismissed the MA filed by the Revenue.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal pronounced its decision to dismiss the MA filed by the Revenue on 13th August, 2014. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely actions and adherence to procedural requirements in legal proceedings, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Department's application for recall of the Tribunal order.