Assessee's Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed as Time-Barred with Unsatisfactory Reasons

The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition (M.P.) filed by the assessee as time-barred and lacking merit. The Tribunal reiterated its inability to condone delays beyond the statutory six-month period under section 254(2) of the IT Act. Additionally, the reasons provided for non-appearance on the hearing date were deemed unsatisfactory and did not meet the requirements of Rule 24. The Tribunal found no merit in the cited judicial pronouncements supporting the assessee's case. Ultimately, the M.P. was dismissed for being time-barred and unsubstantiated, with the order pronounced in open court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the Miscellaneous Petition (M.P.)
2. Applicability of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963
3. Relevance of cited judicial pronouncements
4. Tribunal's power to condone delay beyond six months
5. Merits of the M.P. in terms of non-appearance on the hearing date

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in filing the Miscellaneous Petition (M.P.):
The assessee filed the M.P. on 08.10.2018, requesting the recall of the ex-parte Tribunal order dated 22.11.2016. The Registry issued a defect memo pointing out a delay of 497 days in filing the M.P. As per section 254(2) of the IT Act, the M.P. must be filed within six months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal order was passed. Therefore, the allowable period for filing the M.P. expired on 31.05.2017, rendering the current M.P. time-barred.

2. Applicability of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963:
The assessee argued that the request was not for rectification but for recalling the order under Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which does not specify a limitation period. The Tribunal, however, noted that Rule 24 cannot override the statutory limitation period prescribed under section 254(2) of the IT Act.

3. Relevance of cited judicial pronouncements:
- S.P. Balasubrahmanyam Vs. ACIT: The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Madras High Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of just six days, which does not support the assessee's case of a 497-day delay.
- CIT Vs. Shri P. Venkatesan & Ors.: This case involved the Tribunal recalling its order on merit, not addressing the issue of filing an M.P. beyond the limitation period.
- Sri Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT: The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the Tribunal cannot condone delays beyond six months as per section 254(2), but the High Court can exercise its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to condone the delay. This judgment, therefore, does not assist the assessee's case before the Tribunal.
- N.S. Mohan Vs. ITO: The case involved an ex-parte order being set aside by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, but it did not address the issue of time-barred M.P.s.

4. Tribunal's power to condone delay beyond six months:
The Tribunal reiterated that it does not have the authority to condone delays beyond the six-month period prescribed under section 254(2) of the IT Act. The judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Sri Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT emphasized that while the High Court can condone such delays, the Tribunal cannot.

5. Merits of the M.P. in terms of non-appearance on the hearing date:
Even if the M.P. were filed within the permissible period, the Tribunal found no merit in the reasons provided for non-appearance. The assessee claimed that the senior Accounts officer appeared to file an adjournment request, which was denied. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the dates mentioned and found the reasons for non-appearance unsatisfactory. The Tribunal emphasized that the requirements of Rule 24 were not met, as the reasons for non-appearance were neither reasonable nor substantiated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the M.P. filed by the assessee as time-barred and lacking merit. The judgments cited by the assessee did not support the case for condoning the delay or recalling the ex-parte order. The Tribunal reiterated that it cannot condone delays beyond the statutory period and found the reasons for non-appearance inadequate. The order was pronounced in the open court.

---