TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o recall the impugned Tribunal order under Rule 24 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. He placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements in support of this contention that for recall under Rule 24 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, there is no limitation provided in the said rule. He cited the following judgements. A) S.P. Balasubrahmanyam Vs. ACIT, 394 ITR 366 (Mad), pages 12 to 20 of paper book B) CIT Vs. Shri P. Venkatesan &Ors. dated 21.06.2016 in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 952 to 954 of 2013 (Mad), paper book pages 21 to 23 C) Sri Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT in W.P. No. 25553/2018 (T-IT) dated 12.07.2018 (Karnataka), paper book pages 1 to 11 D) N.S. Mohan Vs. ITO in W.P. No. 8126 of 2018 dated 16.04.2018 (Mad), pages 24 to 27 of paper book. 3. Regarding the first judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court cited before us rendered in the case of S.P. Balasubrahmanyam Vs. ACIT (supra), it was submitted that page nos. 15 and 16 of this paper book being page nos. 373 and 374 of ITR 394 are relevant. Regarding the second judgement cited before us of Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f law raised, is answered against the assessee. Accordingly, the instant Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost." 6. Hence, this judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court is not rendering any help to assessee in the present case. 7. Now we examine the applicability of second judgement cited by ld. AR of assessee rendered in the case of CIT vs. Shri P. Venkatesan & Ors. (supra). As per the facts noted in this case, the Tribunal order was dated 27.11.2012 and as per the M.P. order of the Tribunal dated 03.05.2013, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order dated 27.11.2012. What is the date of filing of M.P. is not coming out from this judgement. Against this order of the Tribunal in M.P., revenue filed an appeal before Hon'ble Madras High Court in which it was contended that the Tribunal ought not to have recalled the Tribunal order because in the same Tribunal order, the issue was decided on merit. The following two questions of law were raised before Hon'ble Madras High Court which are reproduced hereinbelow from page no. 21 of the paper book. "1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Practice Strategic Communications India Private Limited .vs. C.S.T., Domlur, reported in 2016(45) S.T.R. 47(Kar.) wherein this Court at Paragraph (11) has held as under:- 11. In view of the above referred decision of this Court, if this Court finds that the authority has passed the order without jurisdiction or has exercised the power in excess of the jurisdiction or by over-stepping or crossing the limit of jurisdiction or that there is failure of justice, or it has resulted in gross injustice, it would be a case falling under the exceptional category of exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution and to interfere with the order of the original authority or the appellate authority, as the case may be. In order to find out as to whether the case is fit for exercising of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, we may record that as per the decision of the Delhi High Court, Rule 5, on the basis of which the original authority has passed the order for levying of tax is held to be ult....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covered against the assessee because in this judgment, it was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that the Tribunal cannot go beyond the provisions of section 254(2) which provides that the Tribunal cannot condone the delay of more than six months in view of provisions of section 254(2) of IT Act. Therefore, this judgment is not rending any help to assessee in the present case. 11. The last judgment cited by ld. AR of assessee is the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of N.S. Mohan vs. ITO (supra). In this case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee. Against this ex-parte Tribunal order dated 20.06.2017, the assessee filed Writ Petition before Hon'ble Madras High Court. This Writ Petition was decided by Hon'ble Madras High Court as per para nos. 9 to 12 of this judgment available on page no. 26 of paper book. The same are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference. "9. An appeal lies only on a substantial question of law under Section 260A of the Income Tax, 1961. Whether an appeal would be entertained or not would depend on the satisfaction of the High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M.P. dismissed by the Tribunal for filing it beyond the limitation period. In this case, the Writ Petition was filed by the assessee against an ex-parte Tribunal order and the said exparte Tribunal order was set aside by Hon'ble Madras High Court and the matter was restored back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. Hence this judgement is also not rendering any help to assessee in the facts of the present case. 13. As per above discussion, we have seen that none of the four judgements cited by ld. AR of assessee is rendering any help to assessee in the present case. In fact as per the judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the issue is covered against the assessee because in this case, it was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that the Tribunal cannot go beyond the provisions of section 254(2) of IT Act and condone the delay in filing the M.P. Hence by respectfully following this judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, we hold that the present M.P. filed by the assessee is time barred and the same is not admissible. 14. Before parting, we would like to observe that even if this M. P. would have been filed in....