TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Reopens Case After Delay Due to COVID-19, Citing Misapplication of Law and Extending Limitation Periods.</h1> <h3>DCIT Non-corporate circle 4 (1) Chennai Versus M/s Ezaj Tanning Company</h3> DCIT Non-corporate circle 4 (1) Chennai Versus M/s Ezaj Tanning Company - TMI Issues:1. Recall of Tribunal order passed in ITA No.3039/Chny/2018.2. Delay condonation for filing a Miscellaneous Petition.3. Interpretation of provisions of Sec. 153(3) and Sec. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961.Issue 1: Recall of Tribunal Order:The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai received a Miscellaneous Petition from the Revenue seeking the recall of the Tribunal order passed in ITA No.3039/Chny/2018. The Tribunal had quashed an order passed by the Ld. AO on 26.02.2016, which was a result of a revisional order u/s 263. The Tribunal based its decision on the provisions of Sec. 153(3), which stipulated a time limit for passing fresh assessment orders following a u/s 263 order. As the order was passed beyond the specified time limit, the Tribunal quashed it. The Revenue sought the recall of this order, which was allowed by the Tribunal.Issue 2: Delay Condonation:The Revenue requested the condonation of a 55-day delay in filing the Miscellaneous Petition. The delay was attributed to the lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which hindered the timely submission of the petition. The Revenue provided a detailed timeline of events leading to the filing of the petition and highlighted the unintentional nature of the delay. Considering the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic and the Supreme Court's order extending the limitation period, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the petition for adjudication.Issue 3: Interpretation of Statutory Provisions:During the hearing, the Ld. Sr. DR argued that the Tribunal erred in applying the amended provisions of Sec. 153(3) retroactively, as they came into force from 01.06.2016. The Ld. Sr. DR contended that the order u/s 263 was passed on 19.12.2014, and under the old provisions of Sec. 153(2A), the order dated 26.02.2016 was well within the limitation period of one year. The Ld. Sr. DR emphasized that the order was passed within the prescribed time frame calculated from the date the order u/s 263 was issued. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the petition, concluded that it was a case of wrong application of law necessitating their intervention under Sec. 254(2). Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the order dated 23.12.2020 and directed a fresh hearing before the regular bench after informing both parties.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the petition, recalling the previous order and setting the stage for a fresh hearing, acknowledging the complexities of statutory interpretation and the exceptional circumstances leading to the delay in filing the petition.
TaxTMI 