Comfy shoe Makers Private Ltd., vs. The Pri.Commissioner of Incom Tax-I

PDF · subscribers
TCA/162/2024HC Madras13 August 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal did not commit an error in condoning the delay of four days in filing the application for rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to applications filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it is not expressly or implicitly barred. Furthermore, the Tribunal had restored the appeal to its files in light of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s.Checkmate Services Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned Miscellaneous Order passed by the Tribunal and concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the original appeal (I.T.A.No.688/Chny/2022) was to be decided on merits by the Tribunal. The appeal before the High Court was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Comfy Shoe Makers Private Limited, is challenging a Miscellaneous Order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appellant's primary contention is that an application filed before the ITAT to recall an earlier order, which had allowed the appellant's appeal (I.T.A.No.688/Chny/2022) on 26.09.2022, was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The appellant argues that the application, purportedly filed under Section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was delayed by four days and this delay should not have been condoned by the Tribunal. The respondent is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in condoning a delay of four days in filing an application for rectification of its order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the purported reliance on Section 253(3) and the limitation period. Assessee's Contention: The application to recall the order was filed under Section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The limitation for such an application expired on 31.03.2023, and the delay of four days could not be condoned. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Additional Point by the Court: The Court noted that Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allows the Tribunal to amend its order within four years to rectify mistakes apparent from the record, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not expressly or implicitly barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2),Section 253(3),Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.162 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.08.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.162 of 2024 Comfy Shoe Makers Private Limited No.295, SIDCO Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai 600 098. ... Appellant Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 108, Nungambakkam High Road Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. ... Respondent ----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 15.09.2023 in M.P.No.88/Chny/2023 in I.T.A.No.688/Chny/2022. For Appellant : Mr.R.Kannan For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel ---- J U D G M E N T (Delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.) The appellant is before this Court against the impugned Miscellaneous Order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The case of the appellant is that the appeal in I.T.A.No.688/Chny/2022 filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was allowed on merits on 26.09.2022 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.162 of 2024 therefore, any application filed to recall the aforesaid order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax, 1961 ought to have been filed within the limitation prescribed. 3. It is submitted that the Tribunal, may, at any time with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub- section (1), provided such application is filed within six months from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. It is submitted that the order was passed by the Tribunal on 26.09.2022 and the application was filed purportedly under Section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the last date for filing such application expired on 31.03.2023 and therefore, the delay of four days in filing the application under Section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be condoned. 5. Section 253 deals with appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. Section 254 deals with orders of Appellate Tribunal. 6. As per Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.162 of 2024 7. A reading of the above provision indicates that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not expressly or implicitly barred. 8. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed an error while condoning the delay of four days in filing the application for rectifying the order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. That apart, all that the Tribunal has done is that it has restored the appeal to the files of the Court in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Checkmate Services Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, in Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022. 10. As such, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned Miscellaneous Order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration as the appeal in I.T.A.No.688/Chny/2022 has to be decided on merits by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 13.08.2024 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes/No KST https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.162 of 2024 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.No.162 of 2024 13.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →