2012 (3) TMI 126 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Dismissal of Appeals Emphasizing Need for Timely Filing

Valika Chemicals Pvt Ltd Versus The Income Officer

The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals due to the delay in filing, emphasizing the need for a reasonable cause for condonation of delay. It ... Review of Order passed by Tribunal - Application for rectification - Period of limitation - The appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order as barred by limitation because the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee has failed to explain the reasonable cause for filing the appeals late by 670 days and thereby did not inclined to condone the delay. - Held That:- Order under 254(2) can be rectified only in case of mistake apparent from record,Tribunal has no power to review its order passed on merit which amounts to reversal of the order passed after discussing all the facts and statutory provisions in detail. - Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee dismissed. Issues Involved:Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal for AYs 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, and 2002-03.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation due to a delay of 670 days in filing the appeals. The assessee contended that the Tribunal had heard all submissions on the merits of the appeals, but the appeals were dismissed solely on the ground of limitation without deciding other issues. The assessee filed an affidavit and cited a Supreme Court decision to support the plea for condonation of delay. The Revenue argued that being a company with legal resources, the assessee should have been aware of the limitation provisions. The Tribunal examined the delay issue and found that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to condone delay should be exercised judiciously and found no merit in the reasons presented by the assessee. The Tribunal held that once a finding is given after considering all relevant submissions, it cannot be reviewed, especially in cases of inordinate delay.2. Jurisdiction of Tribunal under Section 254(2):The Tribunal clarified that its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) is limited and can only rectify wide apparent mistakes that do not involve complex disputes of facts or law. The Tribunal cannot review its earlier order on merit, and rectification cannot amount to a reversal of a detailed order. It emphasized that Section 254(2) does not allow the Tribunal to review its order passed after thorough consideration of facts and statutory provisions. The Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and dismissed it.In summary, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals due to the delay in filing and emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable cause for condonation of delay. It clarified the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) and highlighted that rectification cannot lead to a review of a detailed order passed after considering all relevant aspects.