Bombay High Court
Seven S Banking Management Consultancy ... vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 30 January, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: K.R. Shriram, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-OS:1852-DB 1/3 912-WPL-13433-2023.doc
Digitally
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
signed by
PURTI
PURTI PRASAD
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PRASAD PARAB
PARAB Date:
2024.02.02
14:59:15
+0530
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 13433 OF 2023
Seven-S Banking Management
Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. ....Petitioner
V/s.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Ors. ...Respondents
----
Mr. K. Gopal a/w Mr. Om Kandalkar, Ms. Neha Paranjape and Mr. Akhilesh
Deshmukh for Petitioner.
Mr. Prakash Chhotaray for Respondents.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATED : 30th JANUARY 2024
P.C. :
1. No affidavit in reply has been filed though time was granted on
18th December 2023 to file reply and serve copy by 5 th January 2024. The
matter was thereafter stood over to 29th January 2024 and then to today.
2. The issue in the petition is very narrow. Petitioner is upset with
order dated 17th April 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT) in the Miscellaneous Application No. 19/Mum/2023 that was filed by
Revenue for the Assessment Year 2018-19. By the said order the ITAT has
recalled its earlier order dated 25 th May 2022 in ITA No. 3/Mum/2022
which order was passed in favour of petitioner.
3. Petitioner's contention is that the Miscellaneous Application
itself was not maintainable in as much as time to file the Miscellaneous
Purti Parab
2/3 912-WPL-13433-2023.doc
Application was 180 days from the end of the month in which the ITAT
order was passed. But the Miscellaneous Application has been filed almost
over a month beyond the time prescribed. It is petitioner's case that the
ITAT has no power to condone any delay. Moreover, it is petitioner's case
that the basis for the Miscellaneous Application is a subsequent judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Gopal submitted that, that
cannot be a mistake apparent from the record because the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court was not in existence when the original order dated 25 th
May 2022 was passed in the appeal filed by petitioner.
4. Mr. Gopal submitted that though there is condonation of delay
application filed by Revenue, the ITAT has not even discussed the
condonation of delay application nor has the ITAT explained how it could
entertain such Miscellaneous Application and therefore the order impugned
be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded for denovo hearing of
the Miscellaneous Application. Mr. Gopal states that there is another
Miscellaneous Application which was filed by department pertaining to
Assessment Year 2019-20 which is still pending. Mr. Gopal states the
impugned order be set aside, the matter be remanded and both the
Miscellaneous Applications be clubbed together and heard.
5. In our view, petitioner is justified in raising a grievance of the
nature recorded above against the impugned order dated 17th April 2023
Purti Parab
3/3 912-WPL-13433-2023.doc
passed by the ITAT. It is also stated by Mr. Gopal that the appearance of
Mr.Soumendu Kumar Dash shown against respondent in the impugned
order is incorrect in as much as the said Mr. Soumendu Kumar Dash had
appeared for applicant and not for respondent/petitioner.
6. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the
matter, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 17 th April 2023.
Miscellaneous Application be remanded for denovo consideration alongwith
MA/28/MUM/2023. All rights and contentions are kept open.
7. Petition disposed. No order as to costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Purti Parab
