Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji
The Income Tax Officer, Abohar vs M/S Superfine Agro Industries, Abohar on 30 November, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR
BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SH.N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
M. A. No. 17/(Asr)/2017
(Arising out of I.T.A. No. 203/(Asr)/2014)
Assessment Year: 2009-10
PAN: ABKFS1193D
Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Superfine Industries,
Ward- II (3), Burj Mohar Road,
Abohar. Abohar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Sh. Rahul Dhawan (D.R.)
Respondent by: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal
Date of hearing: 25.08.2017
Date of pronouncement: 30.11.2017
ORDER
PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM):
This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by revenue against the order of the Tribunal dated 10.03.2016.
2. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR raised preliminary objection to the filing of Miscellaneous Application by revenue and submitted that the department has filed Miscellaneous Application after a period of six months from the end of the month in which the Hon'ble Tribunal had passed order and which is not permitted and needs to be dismissed in view of the amended provisions by which the period of filing of Miscellaneous Application has been reduced from 4 years to six months. The Ld. AR submitted that the application of revenue seeking the condonation of delay itself proves that the Miscellaneous Application is time barred and therefore without going into the merits of the case it needs to be dismissed. Reliance in this respect was placed on a 2 MA No. 17 (Asr)/2017 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.203/(Asr)/2014 Asst. Year:2009-10 consolidated order of Mumbai Bench wherein under similar facts and circumstance, the Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 25.04.2017 had dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by Revenue which was time barred
3. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that due to bonafide mistake the application could not be filed within six months as the department was under impression that a period of 4 months still existed for filing the Miscellaneous Application and it was prayed that in the interest of substantial justice, the delay be condoned and M. A. be heard on merits.
4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We are in agreement with the Ld. AR regarding his preliminary objection to filling of Miscellaneous Application as the same has been filed beyond a period of six months from the end of month in which the order of the Tribunal was passed. The Hon'ble Tribunal in this case had passed order on 10.3.2016 and whereas the M. A. has been filed by revenue in the month of January, 2017. The period of six months expired in September, 2016 and therefore the Miscellaneous Application filed by revenue is not maintainable.
The Hon'ble Tribunal Mumbai Bench in a consolidated order in Miscellaneous Application No. 103 to 108 vide its order dated 25.04.2017 has dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications filed by revenue holding the same to be time barred. For the sake of completeness, the findings of the Hon'ble Tribunal are reproduced below:
3 MA No. 17 (Asr)/2017
(Arising out of I.T.A. No.203/(Asr)/2014 Asst. Year:2009-10 "4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. Since, preliminary legal objections questions the very admissibility of these rectification applications, we take up the same first.
For record, we note that the date of order passed by the Tribunal is 22/03/2013 and the revenue has filed these applications on 28/02/2017 which are clearly beyond a period of six months as provided in Section 254(2). At this juncture, it would be prudent to reproduce the relevant provisions as contained in Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:-
Orders of Appellate Tribunal.
254. (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.
(1A)[***] (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer:
It is to be noted that the earlier period of 'four years' has been substituted with 'six months' by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01/06/2016. However, we find that no distinction has been made in this section between orders passed before 01/06/2016 and orders passed after 01/06/2016. Moreover, the Tribunal order was dated 22/03/2013 and therefore, the Revenue had ample time to go through the same and pin point the mistakes in the order but it has failed to do so, Therefore, we find no force in these miscellaneous petitions primarily because of the reason that the Statute does not authorize us to entertain any petition which has been filed u/s 254(2) at any time beyond a period of six months from the date of the order. The Tribunal has been given power to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period as per Section 253(5). However, this Tribunal is not enshrined with such powers in respect of a miscellaneous petition filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. If we are not given that power, then it is not expected from us to exercise such power which is not provided in the Act. The Tribunal, being creation of law, is bound by the statutory provisions and our jurisdiction is simply to interpret and follow the Statute. There is no scope for us to import any word into the Statute which is not there. Such importation would be nothing but to amend the Statute. We therefore hold that the condonation of delay of these petitions is beyond our jurisdiction, hence rejected. Similar view has been taken by the Mumbai Tribunal in the cited order. Hence, finding the petitions time barring, we dismiss the same.
5. In nutshell, all the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue stands dismissed."
Respectfully following the above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Miscellaneous Application filed by 4 MA No. 17 (Asr)/2017 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.203/(Asr)/2014 Asst. Year:2009-10 revenue is not maintainable and therefore without going into the merits of the Miscellaneous Application, the same is dismissed.
5. In nutshell, the Miscellaneous Application filed by Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.11.2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N. K. CHOUDHRY) (T. S. KAPOOR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated 30/11/2017
GP/Sr./PS
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Assessee:
(2) The
(3) The CIT(A),
(4) The CIT,
(5) The SR DR, I.T.A.T.,
True copy
By Order