2013 (6) TMI 753 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the recalling of orders of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 535/Chd/2005, 536/Chd/2005, and 484/Chd/2005 based on the absence of COD permission and the timeliness of filing Miscellaneous Applications.

Recalling of Orders:
The revenue sought the recalling of orders of the Tribunal due to the dismissal of appeals for lack of COD permission. The revenue referred to a Supreme Court case stating that the functioning of COD has been deemed unnecessary, thus requesting the orders to be recalled.

Timeliness of Filing Miscellaneous Applications:
The counsel for the assessee argued against the entertaining of the Miscellaneous Applications, citing that similar applications had been previously dismissed and that the current applications were filed after four years from the date of the original order. The counsel contended that since there is no provision for COD in filing the M.A., these applications cannot be entertained.

Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed Section 254(2) which allows for the amendment of orders within four years to rectify any mistakes. It was noted that the section consists of two parts: one allowing for suo-motu amendment within four years, and the other part requiring an application from the assessee or Assessing Officer for amendment. The Tribunal concluded that it lacks the power to pass an order under Section 254(2) if the application is made after four years from the original order.

Decision:
The Tribunal found that the Miscellaneous Application filed after four years from the original order could not be entertained. Additionally, it was emphasized that there is no provision for a second M.A. against an earlier one. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to pass any order on the applications and dismissed them.

Conclusion:
The Miscellaneous Applications seeking the recalling of orders were dismissed by the Tribunal based on the timeliness of filing and the absence of provisions for such applications after four years from the original order. The decision was pronounced in open court on 27th June 2013.