Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_168.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 203 Views


Tax Publishers Bipinchandra Chimanlal Doshi v. Dy. CIT [Miscellaneous Application No. 215/Ahd/2017 (in IT(SS)A No. 18/Ahd/2000), dt. 2-12-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 5025 (Ahd.-Trib.) Recalling order of ITAT under section 254(2) on principles of equity despite lapse of limitation *Facts:* Assessee's block assessment case under section 158BD was adjudicated by the ITAT where in as against a number of appeal points the ITAT held that the block assessment itself was invalid. Beyond this the rest of the points of appeal were not discussed and dismissed as infructuous given the quashing of the block assessment itself. Subsequently revenue won the appeal in the high court and a SLP of the assessee was also dismissed at Supreme Court on the validity of the block assessment thereby reversing the ITAT order. The assessee moved this miscellaneous application before the ITAT requesting that though time limit for recalling an ITAT order as being erroneous has become time barred, the rest of the dismissed points of their ITAT appeal be re-adjudicated in the light of the high court verdict upholding the block assessment. Their plea was that in principles of equity and administration of justice they be granted the right of rehearing the rest of the appeal points which were dismissed simply for no fault of theirs and the time limit under section 254(2) for recalling an order cannot stand in the way of this. The order of ITAT passed without hearing the rest of the appeal points was thus also erroneous to the extent they did not grant assessee equity of justice under the law. Held in favour of the assessee that the miscellaneous application deserves admittance on principles of equity. Doctrine of merger of the high court verdict with the ITAT order whereby the reversal of the ITAT order on block assessment cannot stand in the way to rehear the missed points of the original ITAT appeal. To that extent the time limit needs to be diluted to admit justice as per law. The order of ITAT to the extent it did not hear all the points is also one way erroneous as per law. *Applied:* CIT v. Hansha Agencies (P.) Ltd. (2002) 255 ITR 493 (P&H) : 2002 TaxPub(DT) 0495 (P&H-HC) *Editorial Note:* The decision is a landmark judgment to the extent it discusses threadbare section 254(2) and the unusual circumstances in which the M.A. has got reinstated.

Tax Publishers

Bipinchandra Chimanlal Doshi v. Dy. CIT [Miscellaneous Application No. 215/Ahd/2017 (in IT(SS)A No. 18/Ahd/2000), dt. 2-12-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 5025 (Ahd.-Trib.)

Recalling order of ITAT under section 254(2) on principles of equity despite lapse of limitation

Facts:

Assessee's block assessment case under section 158BD was adjudicated by the ITAT where in as against a number of appeal points the ITAT held that the block assessment itself was invalid. Beyond this the rest of the points of appeal were not discussed and dismissed as infructuous given the quashing of the block assessment itself. Subsequently revenue won the appeal in the high court and a SLP of the assessee was also dismissed at Supreme Court on the validity of the block assessment thereby reversing the ITAT order. The assessee moved this miscellaneous application before the ITAT requesting that though time limit for recalling an ITAT order as being erroneous has become time barred, the rest of the dismissed points of their ITAT appeal be re-adjudicated in the light of the high court verdict upholding the block assessment. Their plea was that in principles of equity and administration of justice they be granted the right of rehearing the rest of the appeal points which were dismissed simply for no fault of theirs and the time limit under section 254(2) for recalling an order cannot stand in the way of this. The order of ITAT passed without hearing the rest of the appeal points was thus also erroneous to the extent they did not grant assessee equity of justice under the law.

Held in favour of the assessee that the miscellaneous application deserves admittance on principles of equity.

Doctrine of merger of the high court verdict with the ITAT order whereby the reversal of the ITAT order on block assessment cannot stand in the way to rehear the missed points of the original ITAT appeal. To that extent the time limit needs to be diluted to admit justice as per law. The order of ITAT to the extent it did not hear all the points is also one way erroneous as per law.

Applied:

CIT v. Hansha Agencies (P.) Ltd. (2002) 255 ITR 493 (P&H) : 2002 TaxPub(DT) 0495 (P&H-HC)

Editorial Note: The decision is a landmark judgment to the extent it discusses threadbare section 254(2) and the unusual circumstances in which the M.A. has got reinstated.