2026 (2) TMI 452 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of tribunal order and condonation of cross objection delay, directed rehearing with 12 week disposal timeframe

Tribunal misapplied statutory provisions and dismissed petitioner's cross objections as time barred without properly considering an affidavit explaining ... Rectification of mistake in Tribunal order - dismissing the petitioner's cross-objection as delayed - Misc. Application to restore the cross-objection for consideration of the correct fact as the Tribunal has incorrectly observed that cross-objection was out of time by 8 to 9 months and since the delay was considerable and no valid reasons were given by the petitioner, the cross-objections were dismissed. HELD THAT:- It is painful to record that the Tribunal instead of considering the facts and appreciating the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, has gone tangent by referring to the provision of Section 255(5) of the Act ignoring the provision of Section 253(5). Such a approach of the Tribunal is highly deprecated as the Tribunal did not bother to apply the mind when there is sufficient cause explained by the petitioner by filing an affidavit in support of the cross-objections, the Tribunal had an audacity to mention without any basis that “Petitioner has stated a cooked story for condonation of delay, which is not supported by any evidence. Hence, even delay of 31 days cannot be condoned.” Such observations made by the Tribunal are not emanating from the Misc. Application for rectification filed by the petitioner, but the same are made out of context as on the date of passing of the order dated 16.10.2024, there was mention of delay of 8 to 9 months in the order dated 23.1.2009, which was not corrected by issuing corrigendum by the Tribunal, till 18.12.2024. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal in Misc Application is hereby quashed and set-aside and the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the Tribunal is ordered to be recalled. The delay in filing the cross-objections by the petitioner is ordered to be condoned considering the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the Tribunal is directed to hear the cross-objection along with the pending Appeal filed by the respondent-revenue. As the Appeal and the cross-objections are pending since 2003-2004, the Tribunal is directed to hear the same and dispose of within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order dated 16.10.2024 dismissing Misc. Application No.8/Rjt/2022 should be quashed and set aside, the Tribunal's order dated 23.1.2009 recalling/dismissing the petitioner's cross-objection should be recalled and the delay in filing the cross-objection condoned so that the cross-objection is heard along with the remanded appeal.Analysis: The impugned Misc. Application was directed to rectify a typographical error in the Tribunal's earlier order which had incorrectly recorded the period of delay as eight to nine months instead of 31 days. The Tribunal proceeded to decide the Misc. Application by treating it as an application to admit or condone an appeal and by assessing sufficiency of cause for a delay, referring to substantive delay-defence material and to provisions it considered applicable. The correct statutory framework for admitting or recalling an appeal/cross-objection and for rectification differs from the procedure invoked by the Tribunal; Section 253(5) and related provisions govern admission of appeals for sufficient cause whereas rectification/corrigendum of clerical or typographical errors does not permit re adjudication on merits of delay where the application is limited to correcting the error. The Misc. Application sought restoration/rectification to enable the cross-objection to be heard pursuant to the remand; the Tribunal's reliance on substantive merits and on limitations principles to dismiss the rectification request was therefore a misdirection. The Tribunal later issued a corrigendum correcting the typographical error, but that corrigendum post dated the impugned dismissal and did not cure the error of deciding the Misc. Application on merits instead of limited rectification grounds. Given the averments in the petitioner's affidavit explaining the short delay and the procedural history including the remand, the Tribunal ought to have permitted rectification/restoration and directed hearing of the cross-objection with the remanded appeal rather than dismissing the Misc. Application on the substantive ground of delay without confining itself to the rectification request.Conclusion: The impugned order dated 16.10.2024 is quashed and set aside; the Tribunal's order dated 23.1.2009 is recalled to the extent necessary and the delay in filing the cross-objection is condoned. The Tribunal is directed to hear Cross-Objection No.1/Rjt/2004 along with the pending appeal arising from IT(SS)A No.106/Rjt/2003 and to dispose of both within 12 weeks from receipt of this order. Civil Application No.2330 of 2025 and F/Tax Appeal No.11010 of 2025 are disposed of as infructuous.