2019 (9) TMI 93 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay for filing of the Miscellaneous Application - Miscellaneous Application filed belatedly due to late response from the DRP - barred by limitation provided under section 254(2) - HELD THAT - In view of the facts and circumstances of the case when the miscellaneous application is barred by limitation and following the earlier order of this Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Shri Ram Ratan Modi 2018 (2) TMI 589 - ITAT JAIPUR we dismissed the miscellaneous application as not maintainable being barred by limitation. Accordingly, when there is no provision of condonation of delay for filing of the Miscellaneous Application, then the Miscellaneous Application filed belatedly is not maintainable being barred by limitation provided under section 254(2) of the Act and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period for filing the Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application.
3. Maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application filed beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Period for Filing the Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the limitation period prescribed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, which allows the Appellate Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. The Tribunal noted that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue was barred by limitation, as it was filed 416 days after the prescribed period had expired. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period is explicitly provided in the IT Act, and there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing such applications.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Condon the Delay in Filing the Miscellaneous Application:
The Tribunal examined whether it had the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application. It was argued by the Revenue that the delay should be condoned due to the late response from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). However, the Tribunal held that it does not possess the jurisdiction or power to condone the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application, as there is no provision under the Income Tax Act that allows for such condonation. This position was consistently upheld in previous cases, including "Shri Vinod Kumar Singh vs. ITO" and "ITO vs. Shri Ram Ratan Modi."

3. Maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application Filed Beyond the Prescribed Limitation Period:
The Tribunal also addressed the maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. It was reiterated that since the application was filed beyond the six-month period, it was not maintainable. The Tribunal referenced several precedents, including the decisions of the Coordinate Bench and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in "Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. ITAT," which supported the view that the Tribunal cannot entertain applications filed beyond the statutory limitation period. The Tribunal concluded that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue, holding that it was barred by limitation and not maintainable under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that it lacks the jurisdiction to condone delays in filing such applications, reaffirming the statutory limitation period of six months for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines in legal proceedings and the limitations of judicial discretion in the absence of explicit statutory provisions for condonation of delay.