COSYN LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , TDS, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The Revenue’s identical sole substantive grievance raised before us is that our foregoing common order in issue has erred in law and on facts in accepting the assessee’s appeals despite holding that the amendment in section 200A(1)(c) of the Act applies with prospective effect from 01.06.2015. Learned departmental representative’s case before us is the assessee’s instant twin appeals pertain to the time period after 01.06.2015 only and therefore, we ought to recall our order. The assessee has strongly supported our order by quoting case law ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) as reiterated in CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) that section 254(2) proceedings do not tantamount to rehearing of the entire matter afresh as it is projected at the Revenue’s behest. 3. We find no merit in the assessee’s stand as it has already been made clear that our order in issue had declared on one hand that the impugned late filing fee is applicable with regard to the returns filed after 01.06.2015 only and on the other hand, it deleted the impugned demands under the very statutory provision despite pertaining to the time period after the foregoing clinching date. We make it clear that their lordships have rather held that section 254(2) proceedings are meant to be invoked only in case of an error apparent on record which duly supports the Revenue’s averments in facts of the instant case. We thus recall our order dt.11.06.2021 and hold henceforth that the impugned late filing fee levied i.e. forming subject matter of the main appeals both in ITA Nos.64 and 65/Hyd/2019 shall stand upheld. Ordered accordingly.

Both these Revenue’s miscellaneous applications i.e. M.A Nos.85 & 86/Hyd/2021 are allowed and assessee’s corresponding main appeals ITA Nos.64 and 65/Hyd/2019 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.