RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (central)-2 – Appellant
Versus
Victory Realtech Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM Appl.7971/2023
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
1.1. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 23 days.
2. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
ITA 104/2023
3. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, and is directed against the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"].
3.1. Via the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the respondent/assessee, whereby recall of Tribunal's order dated 17.12.2018 was sought.
3.2. The Tribunal had passed the order in ITA no.5534/Del/2015. The appeal before the Tribunal had been preferred by the respondent/assessee.
3.3. A perusal of the order shows, that the stand of the respondent/assessee before the Tribunal was, that it had not received the notice of hearing on 17.12.2018, when the Tribunal disposed of its appeal.
4. It is in these circumstances, that the Tribunal having satisfied itself
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to recall its order based on the respondent/assessee's claim of not receiving the notice of hearing and emphasized the requirement for parties to move the for....
The court affirmed the power of the Tribunal to rectify its mistake and recall the order under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Tribunal Rules.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in re-filing appeals and may rely on previous decisions to close appeals.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
The court's decision was based on the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal.
The absence of substantial question of law can lead to the closure of appeals.
The main legal point established is that the Tribunal should consider the appropriate provisions, such as Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, when dealing with applications for recalling orders, and the need ....
The court's decision was based on the lack of substantial question of law arising for consideration and the coverage of the issue by a previous court decision.
The court's decision was influenced by its previous ruling on a similar issue, indicating the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.
Clarity in penalty notices and the debatable nature of issues at the relevant time can influence the imposition of penalties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.