TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Senior Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule for the respondent. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has rejected the Misc. Application filed by the petitioner though it is mentioned in the order that there was typographical error in quoting the number of days of delay while rejecting cross-objection filed by the petitioner in the Appeal preferred by the respondent before the Tribunal. 6. The brief facts of the case are as under: 6.1 A search was carried out at the residence and business premises of the petitioner on 16.2.1999. 6.2 An Assessment Order dated 30.3.2001 was passed under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 6.3 Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (For short 'CIT (Appeals)' who by order dated 31.7.2003 deleted certain additions and partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 6.4 Being aggrieved by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued notice for final disposal of the appeal by observing that," We are prima facie of the opinion that the entire order is a nonreasoned and a non-speaking order." On receipt of the notice issued by this Court, the petitioner came to know that by final order dated 18.7.2011, the appeal was allowed by remanding matter to the Tribunal. It was observed by this Court as under: "7. Under the circumstances, impugned judgement of the Tribunal is set aside. Proceedings are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. We have expressed no opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival contentions of the parties." 6.10 It appears that the petitioner as well as the respondent and the Registry of the Tribunal were under impression that as the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal, the order of dismissal of the cross-objection by the Tribunal is also set-aside and the matter including the cross-objection is remanded to the Tribunal by this Court. Such impression was evident in view of the fact that both the Appeal being IT(SS)A No. 106/Rjt/2003 as well as CO No.1/Rjt/2004 were listed together in the cause-list of the Tribunal as wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....even 31 days. 6.13 Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition to quash and set-aside the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Tribunal in Misc. Application and to restore the cross-objections filed by the petitioner on file to be heard along with pending appeal pursuant to the remand made by this Court. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Shah for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner has also preferred Tax Appeal No. 11010 of 2025 along with OJCA No. 2330 of 2025 challenging the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the Tribunal in CO.No.1/RJT/2004 dismissing the cross-objection and to condone the delay of 5771 days in filing the appeal. 8. It was further submitted that the Tribunal while rejecting the Misc. Application has observed that due to typographical error, the Tribunal had mentioned the delay of 8 to 9 months instead of 31 days. It was further pointed out that after dismissal of the Misc. Application, the Tribunal has issued a corrigendum dated 18.12.2024 to rectify the order dated 23.1.2009 replacing the Para-4 of the said order as under: "4. The assessee has filed CO on 20.1.2004 i.e. it is out of time by 31 days. The assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to not to condone the delay in rectification of the Misc. Application, which is not permissible as the Tribunal is only required to consider the mistake committed in the order against which the Misc. Application was filed. 14. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be quashed and set-aside. 15. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta appearing for the respondent submitted, under instructions, that the impugned order may be quashed and setaside and the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal so as to hear the cross-objection filed by the petitioner to be heard with the pending appeal of the revenue after the remand made by this Court in the year 2011. 16. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the chequered history of the case, 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) of the Act by observing as under: "11. Now we shall deal above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal for want of COD approval have to be recalled particularly when Tribunal had put a rider for recalling of its order on getting COD approval. Therefore, we find that in the case of airport authority of India(supra), the facts are totally different and moreover Tribunal had put a rider for recalling of its order on getting COD approval, which is not the assessee`s case, under consideration. (ii) The cross objection filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 31 days only, (one Month only), whereas, the Tribunal has stated in its order, the delay of 8 to 9 months, which relates to length of delay. The length of delay, is not material, what is material is to explain the "sufficient cause", which the assessee has failed to do so. We find that the assessee even failed to explain the delay of 31 days, (one Month only), in the petition for condonation of delay. No doubt, it is a typo graphical error on the part of the tribunal, in coating the number of days of delay, however, the facts remain that assessee, even not able to explain the delay of 31 days. After going through the petition for condonation of delay, we noticed that assessee had stated a cooked story in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tified by issuing a corrigendum, provided the assessee makes a separate application for that purpose. Corrigendum means an error to be corrected, in a printed order of Tribunal, without changing the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal. (iii) Before this Tribunal, the said miscellaneous application is filed by the assessee, (requesting to recall the cross-objection No.01/RJT/2004), after expiry of a period of 13 years(aprox). The Tribunal had passed the order on 23.01.2009, whereas the assessee filed the miscellaneous application before this Tribunal on 12.07.2022, (almost, after expiry of a period of 13 years approx.). The assessee, did not file petition for condonation of delay, to condone such huge delay, therefore, we dismiss the assessee`s Miscellaneous Application. 17. From the above observations and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the Tribunal has decided the Misc. Application as if the petitioner has filed an the appeal rather than referring to the mistake committed by the Tribunal while rejecting the cross-objection filed by the petitioner. 18. It is also pertinent to note that the Tribunal has recorded in the aforesaid observat....