Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3987 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
7 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
03-11-2020
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
23-10-2020
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
12-03-2020
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A K GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MP NO.59/BANG/2020 [IN IT(TP)A 40/BANG/2017] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BENGALURU. VS. M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT., LTD., IMAGINE NO. 78, ITPL MAIN ROAD, EPIP ZONE WHITE FIELD, BANGALORE-560 066. PAN: AABCT 9452F APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : DR. NISCHAL, ADDL. C I T (DR) RESPONDENT BY : SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 23 .1 0.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 . 1 1 .2020 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE RE VENUE U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) PRAYING FOR RECA LLING THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2019 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE AF ORESAID APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL WAS LESS THAN RS.50 LAKHS AND IN VIEW THE CBDT CIRC ULAR NO. 17/2009, THE REVENUE CANNOT FILE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHE RE THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS. 50 LAKHS. MP NO.59/BANG/2020 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. IN THIS PETITION, REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEAL IS MORE THAN 50 LAKHS AND IS IN FACT A SUM O F RS.3,41,99,010/-. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DISPUT E THE POSITION THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS MORE THAN RS.50 LAKHS. HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN ARGUED BY HER THAT SINCE THE ORDER OF TRIB UNAL WAS PASSED ON 28.08.2019, IN TERMS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT T HE MP OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORD ER I.E., ON OR BEFORE 27.02.2020. SINCE THE MP HAS BEEN FILED ON 12.03.2 020, THE SAME SHOULD BE DISMISSED. IN THIS REGARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE PLACED ON RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S ALTEN CALSOFT LABS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., V. DCIT , IN MP NO. 69/BANG/2018, ORDER DATED 12.10.2018 WHEREIN A VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED THAT PERIOD OF LI MITATION FOR FILING MP U/S 254(2) HAS TO BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDE R. 4. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS POINTED OUT THA T THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOLDEN TIMES SERVICES LTD., V. DCIT (2020) 103 TAXMAN.COM 524 (DEL) HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT PERIOD OF LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE RECKONED FROM T HE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER ON THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, IN REPLY, SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IS IN THE CON TEXT OF EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DR WAS PRESENT WHEN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED AND THEREFORE TH E DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAS T O BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY THE REVENUE WHICH W AS ONLY ON 20.11.2019. RECKONED FROM THAT DATE, MP FILED ON 12.03.2020 IS WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IS EX PARTE AND THE ORDER IN THE PRESENT CASE MP NO.59/BANG/2020 PAGE 3 OF 3 WAS PASSED IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. DR, IS NOT OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. IN FACT, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LIBERTY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE D EPARTMENT TO SEEK RECALL OF THE ORDER IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THE TAX EFFEC T IS MORE THAN RS.50 LAKHS. KEEPING IN MIND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2019 DISMISSING THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS TO BE RECALLED. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL CITED BY THE LD. COUNSE L FOR ASSESSEE IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW LAID BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND THEREFORE NOT OF ANY USE TO THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REGISTRY IS DI RECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING IN DUE COURSE AFTER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( A K GARODIA ) ( N V VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 03 RD NOVEMBER, 2020. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.
