TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not have inherent power to condone the delay and relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the matter of MP.325/Bang/2018, dt. 25.01.2019 in the matter of Karaturi Global Services. 04. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undoubtedly the present MP is filed belatedly as the order of the Tribunal was passed on 15.09.2017 and the MP was filed on 04.12.2018. Thus there is a delay of eight months and four days in filing the present MP. The coordinate bench in the matter of Karaturi Global Services (supra) had taken the same view, which is as under : 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The facts are not disputed that the impugned Tribunal order is dated 22.11.2016 and the present M.P. had been filed by assessee on 08.10.2018 and as per the provisions of section 254(2) after amendment, the M.P. can be filed by the assessee within six months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal order has been passed. Therefore, the present M.P. could have been filed by the assessee up to 31.05.2017 and therefore, the present M.P. of assessee is time barred. In light of these facts, now we examine the applicability of various judgements ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on'ble Madras High Court, it is seen that in this case, this is not the issue in dispute as to whether the Tribunal can recall the ex-parte Tribunal order by deciding an M.P. filed by the assessee after expiry of limitation period. The issue in dispute in that case was whether the Tribunal can recall the Tribunal order in which the issue was decided on merit. Since the facts and issues are different, this judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court is not relevant in the present case. 9. The third judgment cited before us is the judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Sri Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT (supra). In this case, the Tribunal order was dated 13.01.2015 and the M.P. against this Tribunal order was filed by the assessee on 30.12.2016 and as per the Tribunal order in M.P. dated 21.06.2017, the M.P. of assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation. Against this order of Tribunal in M.P. proceedings, the assessee filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. In our considered opinion, paras 9 and 10 of this judgement are very much relevant and hence, we reproduce the same hereinbelow for ready reference. "9. It is also not in dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fice it to observe that in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court, there was a strong case on merits on the part of the petitioner to be considered by the taxing authority. Unfortunately the decision of the Delhi High Court though was specifically brought to the notice of the original authority in the reply to the show cause notice, in the impugned order of the original authority, there is no reference whatsoever. Under these circumstances, we find that the case may fall in the exceptional category for exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. In view of the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court stated supra, the petitioner has made out a case that his case falls under exceptional category for exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Misc. Petition only on the ground of delay." 10. From the above paras of this judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, we find that it was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in this case that under the provisions of section 254, the Tribunal cannot go beyond the provisions of the said section as per which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....frains from exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction. This Court would not reject an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the remedy, if any, of appeal is uncertain as in the case of an appeal under Section 260A of the 1961 Act which depends on the subjective satisfaction of the Division Bench of the High Court, of existence of a substantial question of law. 11. In any case, there are at least 3 exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. A writ application might be entertained where the order is in violation of principles of natural justice, where the order has been passed under a law which is ultra vires or is otherwise without jurisdiction or in case of an order which is perverse. The order impugned is patently repugnant to Section 254 of the 1961 Act read with Rule 24 of the 1963 Rules. 12. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The learned Tribunal is directed to consider the matter on merits and take a fresh decision in accordance with law, preferably within 45 days from the date of communication of this order. Consequently, W.M.P.No.10105 of 2018 is closed." 12. As per the f....