Krishan Mohan Goyal v. Order

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 34/2021 Krishan Mohan Goyal S/o Late Mr. Naval Kishore Goyal, AgedAbout 64 Years, Presently Resides At 102/89 Meera Marg,Mansrovar Jaipur-302018 (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench A At G-4, Raj Mahal Residential Area, Near 22 Godam Inox,Shivaji Nagar, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302006 (Rajasthan)4, Raj Mahal Residential Area, Near 22 Godam Inox,Shivaji Nagar, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302006 (Rajasthan) 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, JaipurPresently Situates Its Office At Ncr Building, BhagwanDass Road, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur302005, (Rajasthan)Presently Situates Its Office At Ncr Building, BhagwanDass Road, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur302005, (Rajasthan) 3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.2 (4), Jaipur JaipurPresently Situates Its Office At Ncr Building, BhagwanDass Road, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur302005, (Rajasthan)Presently Situates Its Office At Ncr Building, BhagwanDass Road, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur302005, (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s): Mr. Naresh Kumar SejvaniFor Respondent(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 27/01/2023 1.The assessee-appellant appeal before the Tribunal wasdismissed for want of prosecution. 2.The assessee-appellant applied for its recall. The recallapplication was filed admittedly beyond the period of four years. Itwas accordingly rejected as barred by time. 3.The assessee-appellant has preferred this appeal challengingthe rejection of the recall/restoration application. The rejection of the recall/restoration application in no way involves or raise anysubstantial question of law to enable us to entertain this appeal. 4.Learned counsel for the assessee-appellant submits that theapplication has been rejected by applying Section 254(2) of theAct rather than Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1960. 5.In either of the events, the limitation for filing therectification application or the recall application is four years andadmittedly the application filed by the assessee-appellant wasbeyond five years, therefore, it was liable to be rejected. It doesnot matter if it is rejected by referring to Section 254(2) of the Actor by referring to Rule 24 of the Rules. 6.The second submission of learned counsel for the assessee-appellant is that the order sought be recalled was passed on20.07.2015 but in the bottom of the said order the date ismentioned as 20.05.2015 which is not possible. 7.In case any such discrepancy is there it may be due to someclerical error or may be otherwise but for the said purpose thepetitioner can seek correction/review of the said order but thisappeal which has to be entertained on substantial question of lawcannot be entertained by us as it does not involve any substantialquestion of law. 8.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as bereft of merit withliberty aforesaid. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ N.K. GANDHI/LAKSHYA SHARMA /2