TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the Misc. Petition on the ground of delay is hereby quashed. - ITAT directed to decide the issue on merit. - Writ Petition No. 25553/2018 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 12-7-2018 - MR. B. VEERAPPA J. Petitioner By: Smt. Vani. H, Advocate Respondent By: Sri. K.V. Aravind, Advocate O R D E R The present writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.6.2017 made in Misc. Petition No.24/Bang/2017 arising out of ITA No.860/Bang/2012 dated 13.01.2015 relating to the assessment year 2007-08 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the Misc. Petition on merits. 2. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed the Misc. Petition as barred by limitation. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Smt.Vani, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the petition on the ground of limitation is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. She further contended that the Tribunal ought to have applied the law laid down by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another.vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has specifically held that notice under Section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed after 11 months 17 days. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go beyond six months and as such sought to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent exercising powers under Section 143 sub-section(3) of the Act by an order dated 24.2.2009 determined the income of the assessee at ₹ 1,14,93,587/-. Thereafter, the said order was subject-mater of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax who after considering the arguments of both the parties, by an order dated 2.3.2012 dismissed the appeal on merits. The same was reaffirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 13.1.2015. The petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the process, there was a delay of 11 months 17 days. After deducting the time stipulated under Section 254(2) of the Act about 4 months 10 days would be the delay. The appellant has explained the delay in filing the Misc. Petition. Though under the provisions of Section 254 the Tribunal cannot go beyond the provisions of the said Section, the fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that injustice is being done by not following the Division Bench decision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Practice Strategic Communications India Pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner to be considered by the taxing authority. Unfortunately the decision of the Delhi High Court though was specifically brought to the notice of the original authority in the reply to the show cause notice, in the impugned order of the original authority, there is no reference whatsoever. Under these circumstances, we find that the case may fall in the exceptional category for exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. In view of the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court stated supra, the petitioner has made out a case that his case falls under exceptional category for exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal dismissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
