Recently, the High Court of Allahabad in a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhatia dismissed a Petition upholding the ruling of the ITAT, Lucknow that a mere wrong mention in the title of the application cannot be construed against the petitioner and cannot wipe away the scope of application under Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal Rules).
Brief Facts:
The petition challenges the order dated 21.06.2023 whereby the recall application of the petitioner was dismissed on grounds of limitations outlined under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides that the Appellate Tribunal may rectify any mistake that is evident from the record within four years and Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 which gives power to the Tribunal to ex-parte decide the appeal on the grounds of merit in case the appellant does not appear.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contested the ground of non-appearance in the Tribunal to be lack of notice of hearing. As a result, the appeal was rejected for non-prosecution with the notation that the assesses would be free to apply to Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, he disputed that he had submitted an application titled "Application under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act" because of the order but that had been denied because it had passed the deadline outlined in the section.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent contested that since the reliance in the application was on Section 254 of the Act, it is wholly misplaced and the petitioner should not be allowed to file for rectification.
Observations of the Court: The Court cited the case of Cement Corporation of India Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Circle 5(2) New Delhi and stated that an application of recall needs to be based on Rule 24 rather than Section 254.
The decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia J. stated that the wrong mention in the title of the application was based on the observation of the tribunal and therefore the petitioner cannot be construed for the acts of the Tribunal.
Case Title: M/s Purnagiri Rice Mill v. Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhatia
Case No.: Writ Tax No. - 197 of 2023
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Vibhanshu Srivastava and Mr. Shishir Yadav
Advocate for Respondent: A.S.G.I., Kushagra Dikshit
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
