TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05.08.2022. Despite the extension granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Revenue has filed the Misc. Application after five months from the period of extension granted and also six months after the original order dated 14.09.2019 was passed. Therefore, the delay in present Misc. Applications cannot be condoned. - SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Sakar Sharma, AR For the Revenue : Shri Sanjaykumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These six Miscellaneous Applications are filed by the Revenue in respect of common order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal vide combine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the issue may be re-adjudicated by admitting M.A for remaining years and the additions made for AY 1997-98 may be confirmed. 3. The Ld. DR further submitted that there is a delay in filing the Misc. Applications to that of 887 days for which the Ld. DR submitted that the condonation of delay and its reasons are envisaged in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the Misc. Applications. The same is as follows: 8. Condonation of delay: The delay in filing of this Misc. application for AY 1997-98 has occasioned due to following reasons: 16.12.2021 Received copy of order from the Hon ble ITAT office allowing MA for AY 1997-98 in this case i.e. very much time after it had filed and date of pronouncement i.e. 05.10.2020. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation in filing of appeals, etc. in various courts. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay is exorbitant and the Tribunal does not have power to condone the delay in filing of Misc. Application as per Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR further submitted that the correct date of order of the Tribunal in M.A. No.48/Ahd/2020 in ITA No.332/Ahd/2005 is 05.10.2021 and not 05.10.2020. The Ld. AR submitted that reasons stated for condonation in Para 8 of the MAs are not sufficient and does not justify the condonation of delay. In fact, despite drawing attention by the Tribunal about M.As for remaining years while hearing M.A. No.48/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 1996-97, no steps were taken to prefer MA with condonation request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not explain the delay from 14.09.2019 till 15.03.2020 (date from which Covid-19 restrictions were imposed) and from 28.02.2022 till the filing of present Misc. Applications which is 05.08.2022. Despite the extension granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Revenue has filed the Misc. Application after five months from the period of extension granted and also six months after the original order dated 14.09.2019 was passed. Therefore, the delay in present Misc. Applications cannot be condoned. Thus, all the six Misc. Applications being M.A.No. 52/Ahd/2022 in ITA No.1112/Ahd/2005 for A.Y. 1997-98, M.A. No. 53/Ahd/2022 in ITA No.2484/Ahd/2005 for A.Y. 1998-99, M.A. No.54/Ahd/2022 in ITA No.1091/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1999-2000, M.A.No.55/Ahd/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
