2025 (4) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The assessee by filing the captioned miscellaneous application submitted as follows: (relevant extract) "1. That Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur had dismissed appellant's appeal in ITA No. 192/ RPR/2023 on the ground that there is no bona fide reason explaining inordinate delay of 8 years involved in filing the appeal. 2. That while dismissing the appeal, the Hon'ble Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not served upon the appellant and he had obtained certified copy of the order and filed the appeal and there is no delay in filing the appeal. 3. That revenue, excepting opposing admission of appeal on the grou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is liable to be rejected. 4. I have heard the parties herein, considered the contents in the miscellaneous application along with the Tribunal order. That on a perusal of the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No.192/RPR/2023, dated 20.10.2023, I find that the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the assessee observed that there were no justifiable reasons leading to the delay of 8 years (approx.) which could be condoned by it. Accordingly, the Tribunal was of the view that as the delay involved in the appeal was inordinate and substantial, therefore, the same could not be summarily condoned. Further, I find that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay by relying on various judicial pronouncements....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been rais....