TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee did not pursue the declaration made under Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2020 which stands rejected. Thereafter, the assessee realized that the outstanding demand for the A.Ys 2012-13 & 2013-14 were sought to be adjusted by the Department against the refund for the A.Y 2024-25 and thus, the assessee has filed these M.As for recalling of the order of this Tribunal dated, 7/6/2021 and restoring the appeals of the assessee for adjudication on merits. Since there is a delay in filing the M.As whereby the assessee is seeking recalling of the earlier order dated 7/6/2021, therefore, the learned Counsel for the assessee was asked to explain on the points of delay and maintainability of the M.As filed belatedly. 2. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that while passing the order dated 7/6/2021, this Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals and consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for revival of the appeal, in case the application with respect to Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2020 are rejected. Thus, the learned AR has contended that the assessee was given liberty to approach the Tribunal to rein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te delay in filing the Miscellaneous Applications on behalf of the assessee and the assessee has given no reason to explain the inordinate delay in filing the applications. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Applications are not maintainable due to delay and latches on the part of the assessee. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. This Tribunal vide order dated 7/6/2021 has recorded the request of the assessee and then allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals in Para 2 to 4 as under: "2. At the outset, the learned Authorized Representatives of the respective assessees submitted that the assessee do not want to pursue the appeals as they have already filed forms I & II under the "Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020" and yet to receive Form 3 from the Department. Therefore, consequent to the same, the assessees desires to withdraw the appeals before the Tribunal. Hence it was pleaded that the appeals of the assessees may be treated as withdrawn. 3. The learned DR conceded to the request of the learned ARs. 4. After hearing both the parties, according to the request of the assessees and their learned ARs, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of dispute under VSVS 2020 would not automatically restore the appeals of the assessee until and unless the same is brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the affected party. Though the provisions of DT VSVS Act, 2020 provides a right to the assessee to get the proceedings revived, but until and unless the assessee brings this development of rejection of the declaration under VSVS 2020 to the notice of the Tribunal, it will not have an effect of automatic revival of the appeals. The learned AR has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in case of Mahesh Goud Voruganti vs. Income Tax Officer (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held in paras 14 to 17 as under: "14. Admittedly, the Tribunal vide order dated 20-1-2021 granted liberty to the petitioner herein to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal in case application submitted by the petitioner under DTVSV scheme is rejected. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal had referred to section 254(2) of the Act while dismissing M.A.No.52/Hyd/20223, construing the time limit as six months as stipulated under section 254(2) of the Act. Section 254(2) of the Act stipulates that an application ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law on its own merits." 6. In the said case, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application by treating the same as filed u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and consequently, held as not maintainable being barred by limitation as provided u/s 254(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the application filed by the assessee for revival of the appeal would not be treated as an application for rectification of mistake u/s 254(2) of the Act and therefore, the limitation provided u/s 254(2) would not be applicable. Thus, even if the application filed by the assessee is not for rectification of the mistake in the order of this Tribunal dated 7/6/2021 and the same may be treated u/s 254(1) of the Act for exercising the inherent power to recall its order to meet the end of justice, the assessee cannot be allowed to wait for an indefinite period before approaching the Tribunal for recalling of the order. Therefore, even if the limitation of 6 months as provided u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not applicable in the case of recalling of the order dated 7/6/2021, the applications ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions of this Act; " 8. Thus, the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application is provided in the schedule of period of limitation and computed in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act. As per Article 122 of the schedule of limitation, the period of limitation for filing an application to restore the suit, appeal or application for review or revision is 30 days computed from the date of dismissal of the suit, appeal or application. Though section (5) of the Limitation Act provides that an appeal or application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Since the application in the case of the assessee is not for restoration of the appeal dismissed for default of appellant therefore, the period of limitation as provided under Article 137 which covers all other applications may be considered being residual provision prescribes the limitation as 3 years which is otherwise provided under the limitation Act for filing the suits falling in the first division of the schedule for that there is no p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. Moreover, the Applicant has not gained anything, either in monetary terms or non- monetary terms, by delay in filing the present application. The Applicant is very much keen in pursuing the appeal and assures the Hon'ble Tribunal that it shall extend all possible assistance for disposal of the said appeal. 10. The Applicant prays that the inadvertent delay be condoned and the matter be restored as the quantum involved and corresponding demand raised is very high and would cause the Applicant grave injustice if the matter stays dismissed without the Applicant having received any opportunity of being heard. 11. Without prejudice, the Applicant submits that section 254(2) of the Act has no application to the present miscellaneous application as the same is for revival of the appeal and cannot be equated with the rectification of order as stipulated in section 254(2) of the Act. Thus, though there is delay on part of the Applicant in approaching the Hon'ble Bench, the Applicant should be afforded an opportunity to pursue its appeal to meet ends of justice or else it would be left remediless. 10. Thus, the assessee has explained that it was under Bona....