9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 394 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - justifiable reasons leading to the delay of 8 years (approx.) which could be condoned by it - HELD THAT - Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the assessee observed that there were no justifiable reasons leading to the delay of 8 years (approx.) which could be condoned by it. Accordingly the Tribunal was of the view that as the delay involved in the appeal was inordinate and substantial therefore the same could not be summarily condoned. Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay by relying on various judicial pronouncements. Accordingly assessee applicant had failed to point out any mistake apparent from the record and in the garb of the aforesaid miscellaneous application he is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal which is beyond the scope of its powers as envisaged u/s. 254(2) Assessee in the garb of the present application filed u/s. 254(2) of the Act seeks for a review of the order so passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal which does not fall within the realm of the powers vested with it u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal due to an inordinate delay of approximately 8 years in filing the appeal, and whether the Tribunal's dismissal constitutes a mistake apparent from the record that can be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework revolves around Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal's powers under this section are limited to correcting obvious and patent mistakes and do not extend to reviewing or revisiting the merits of the case. Key precedents cited include the judgments from the Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., and Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., which emphasize that a mistake apparent on the record must be obvious and not require extensive reasoning. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted its powers under Section 254(2) as limited to correcting mistakes that are apparent from the record. It reasoned that the assessee's application did not point out such a mistake but rather sought a review of the Tribunal's decision, which is beyond the scope of Section 254(2). The Tribunal found that the delay of 8 years in filing the appeal was substantial and without justifiable reasons, thus not warranting condonation. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving the order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and only filing the appeal after obtaining a certified copy. However, the Tribunal found no mistake apparent from the record in its prior decision to dismiss the appeal based on delay. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles established in the cited precedents to the facts of the case, concluding that the assessee's request was essentially a request for a review rather than a rectification of a mistake. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for a mistake to be apparent from the record to be rectifiable under Section 254(2), which was not demonstrated by the assessee. Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the assessee's argument that the appeal was filed without delay after obtaining the certified copy of the order. However, it found that this did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal also considered the Departmental Representative's argument that the delay was inordinate and unjustified, supporting the decision to dismiss the appeal. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's application did not demonstrate a mistake apparent from the record. Instead, it sought a review of the Tribunal's earlier decision, which is not permissible under Section 254(2). Consequently, the miscellaneous application was dismissed. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that the scope of Section 254(2) is confined to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to reviewing or revisiting the merits of a case. The Tribunal reiterated that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to an inordinate delay was upheld, and the application for rectification was dismissed as it sought a review rather than rectification. Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions." Core principles established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that Section 254(2) is not a mechanism for reviewing decisions but is strictly for rectifying clear and obvious mistakes apparent from the record. Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal determined that the assessee's application did not point out any mistake apparent from the record and was an attempt to review the earlier decision. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the Tribunal's original decision to dismiss the appeal due to delay was upheld.
|
