KRISHAN MOHAN GOYAL S/O LATE MR. NAVAL KISHORE GOYAL vs. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Facts

The assessee-appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for recall of this dismissal order. This recall application was filed beyond the period of four years from the date of the dismissal order. The ITAT rejected the recall application as being barred by time. The assessee then preferred an appeal before the High Court challenging the rejection of the recall application. The appeal before the High Court was filed against the ITAT, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Income Tax Officer.

Held

The High Court held that an appeal to it must involve a substantial question of law. The rejection of a recall/restoration application by the ITAT, particularly when filed beyond the limitation period, does not, in itself, raise a substantial question of law that would warrant the High Court's entertainment of the appeal. The Court noted that whether the application was rejected under Section 254(2) of the Act or Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, the limitation for filing a rectification or recall application is four years. Since the assessee's application was filed beyond five years, it was liable to be rejected. Regarding the date discrepancy, the Court observed that such an issue might be a clerical error and could be sought for correction or review of the original order, but it did not constitute a substantial question of law for the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as bereft of merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can entertain an appeal against the rejection of a recall/restoration application by the ITAT when no substantial question of law is involved. 2. Whether the rejection of the assessee's recall application was erroneous, considering it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT rejected the recall application by applying Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, instead of Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1960. The assessee also pointed out a discrepancy in the date mentioned at the bottom of the ITAT's dismissal order, stating it was 20.05.2015 instead of 20.07.2015, which they contended made the order impossible. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the issues raised by the assessee. However, the High Court's reasoning implies the revenue's position was in line with the ITAT's decision to dismiss the recall application.