2020 (11) TMI 254 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - scope of the proceedings before the AO pursuant to the two set of orders passed u/s.263 - HELD THAT - Delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, there is no necessity or need to give any finding on the merits of the appeal. Though there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Assessee regarding the scope of proceedings while passing the set of revisionary orders u/s.263 of the Act dated 16.1.2017, since the delay in filing the appeals were not condoned, there was no scope for giving any findings on scope of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act or recording any observations made at the time of hearing on the first set of orders u/s.263 of the Act dated 24.3.2014. In other words, those aspects did not require any consideration. The scope of proceedings u/s.254(2) of the Act are very limited to rectifying mistakes that are apparent on the face of the record. There is no such apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal pointed out in these petitions. In the given circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any mistake apparent on the face of the record. We dismiss the miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of errors in the order of Tribunal dated 11.01.2019 under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Correctness of the orders passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Act for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11.
3. Condonation of delay in filing appeals against the orders dated 24.3.2014 passed under section 263 of the Act.
4. Scope of proceedings before the AO in light of the orders passed under section 263 of the Act.

Issue 1: Rectification of errors in the order of Tribunal:
The assessee filed miscellaneous petitions seeking rectification of errors in the Tribunal's order dated 11.01.2019. The Tribunal had refused to condone the delay in filing appeals against the CIT's orders dated 24.3.2014 under section 263 of the Act. The assessee argued that the second set of revisionary orders dated 16.01.2017 should have been contested instead of the first set, as the latter became infructuous upon the former's issuance. However, the Tribunal found no apparent mistake in its order, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.

Issue 2: Correctness of CIT's orders under section 263:
The CIT, exercising powers under section 263, set aside the assessment orders for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 due to alleged errors by the AO. For AY 2009-10, the CIT highlighted unexplained cash deposits, while for AY 2010-11, investments were questioned. The AO subsequently passed fresh assessment orders. However, the Pr.CIT, in 2017, directed the AO to reassess based on the earlier CIT orders. The delay in filing appeals against the CIT's 2014 orders led to the Tribunal's refusal to condone it, emphasizing the significance of the 2017 orders.

Issue 3: Condonation of delay in filing appeals:
The assessee faced a delay of 909 days in filing appeals against the CIT's orders dated 24.3.2014 under section 263 for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. Despite arguments regarding the relevance of the subsequent 2017 orders, the Tribunal upheld its decision not to condone the delay. The Tribunal's focus was on the procedural aspect of the appeal filing timeline rather than delving into the merits of the case due to the delay not being condoned.

Issue 4: Scope of proceedings before the AO:
The AO's actions post the CIT's orders under section 263 were scrutinized. The assessee contended that the directions in the 2017 orders exceeded the scope set by the 2014 orders, making them impermissible in law. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the merit in this argument, emphasized that without condoning the appeal delay, no findings on the proceedings' scope were necessary. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the petitions rested on the absence of apparent mistakes in its order.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its implications.