9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Checkmate Services Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 (448) ITR 518 (SC)., being rendered subsequent to the original decision of the Tribunal, hence the same would not be relevant for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 3. The facts are not in dispute. The Assessment Years in question are 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. For these Assessment Years, the petitioner had filed its returns of income. The assessing officer in carrying out the assessment certain amounts in regard to the payment of the statutory dues like the Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Corporation amounts were not allowed as expenses under Section 36 (1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act" for short), for the reason that such payments were made beyond the due date under the relevant legislations. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the assessing officer not allowing such expenditure under the said heads, approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)" for short). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeals. Against the orders passed by the CIT(A), the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by judgment and order dated 26 July 2022 was pleased to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment being rendered by the Supreme Court, cannot be a ground to invoke the provisions of Section 254 (2) of the IT Act, as in this event, the only remedy for the Revenue would be to assail the orders passed by the Tribunal in an appeal to be filed before this Court under Section 260A of the IT Act. 7. It is next submitted that in any event, the locus to file Miscellaneous Application in terms of Section 254 (2), was available provided such Miscellaneous Application was to be filed within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the limitation of six months is prescribed and/or available by virtue of a statutory provision of sub-Section (2) of Section 254 of the IT Act. In the present case, clearly the Miscellaneous Applications were filed with a delay of 92 days. It is, therefore, the petitioner's submission that in terms of Section 254 (2), the Miscellaneous Application was per se barred by limitation. It is submitted that this aspect is also not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of Section 254 (2) hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this subsection on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees. (2A) In every appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 253: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, after considering the merits of the application made by the assessee, pass an order of stay in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under sub-section (1) of section 253, for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of such order subject to the condition that the assessee deposits not less than twenty per cent of the amount of tax, interest, fee, penalty, or any other sum payable un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfying the conditions, that such mistake is brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the assessee or the assessing officer "within six months" from the end of the month, when the order was passed. 12. Thus, from the plain language of sub-Section (2) of Section 254, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as conferred under sub-Section (2) of Section 254 is akin to the review jurisdiction of the Civil Court, that is to be rectify any mistake apparent from the record. 13. The question in the present case is whether there was any mistake apparent on the face of the record and/or whether a decision which was rendered by the Supreme Court subsequent to the Tribunal's decision of which rectification is sought, could be relevant to come to a conclusion on the ground that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the order, the Tribunal could substitute its original order. 14. In our clear opinion, the question would be required to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reasons for which we discuss hereunder. In such context, at the outset, we may observe that the petitioner had succeeded before the Tribunal on the basis of the position in law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llaneous Application is concerned, it appears that the position in law is well settled. The jurisdiction as conferred under sub-Section (2) of Section 254 is akin to the jurisdiction conferred on the Civil Court under the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC inter alia to correct mistakes apparent on the face of the record. However, on a comparative reading of sub-Section (2) of Section 254 of the IT Act, and Rule 1 of Order XLVII of CPC, it appears that such jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal is more restricted. 17. In Beghar Foundation (Supra), the Supreme Court was considering a review petition, filed against the final judgment and order dated 26 September 2018, passed on the main proceedings. In rejecting the review petition, the Supreme Court observed that no case for review of such judgment was made out, and most importantly on the ground that change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of coordinate or larger bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. Such principles of law are squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. 18. In Sanjay Kumar Agrawal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Another (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 362., the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
