Delhi HC in the case of Pacific Projects Limited Versus Asstt CIT

Case Covered:

Pacific Projects Limited

Versus

Asstt CIT

Facts of the Case:

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29th July 2019 passed by the ITAT dismissing the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner/assessee under Section 254(2) for recall of the ex-parte order dated 01st  September 2017 whereby the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after examining all documents, including additional evidence as well as books of accounts, bills, and vouchers, etc.

The ITAT in its order dated 29th July 2019 held that it had no power to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 254(2) as the petitioner had filed the miscellaneous application after six months from the end of the month in which the impugned order had been passed.

Observations:

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the paper book, we find that the address of the appellant mentioned in the appeal before the ITAT by the respondent/Department was its former address and not the new address, which had been mentioned in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appellate) in form No. 35.

Consequently, the petitioner was never served in the appeal filed by the Department before the ITAT.

This Court is also of the view that the ITAT has erroneously concluded that the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation under Section 254(2) of the Act inasmuch as the petitioner had filed the miscellaneous application within six months of actual receipt of the order. If the petitioner/assessee had no notice and no knowledge of the order passed by the ITAT, it cannot be said that the limitation would start from the date the order was pronounced by the Tribunal.

The Decision of the Court:

For the foregoing reasons, the course adopted by the ITAT at the first instance, by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, and then compounding the same by refusing to entertain the application for recall of the order, cannot be sustained. We, therefore have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 29th July 2019 is quashed and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we also set aside the ex-parte order dated 1st September 2017 with a direction that the ITAT shall hear and dispose of ITA No. 6686/De1/2013 on merits after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall apply under the Amnesty Scheme being “Vivad Se Vishwas”. The statement made by learned counsel for the appellant is accepted by this Court and the matter is held bound by the same.

Read & Download the full Decision in pdf: