2019 (2) TMI 1681 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing of Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) - period of limitation - HELD THAT - Where the Legislature intended to mark period of limitation from the date of receipt of the order by the parties to the lis, the sections and the sub-sections have been worded in unambiguous manner to convey the intent. No further interpretation of sections or intentions are required. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of status that where the meaning are self explanatory from the provisions and the provisions of section can be interpreted literally no further interpretation is required. We further find that the reliance by the Revenue on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Liladhar T. Khushlani Vs. Commissioner of Custom 2017 (2) TMI 200 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT is misplaced. The said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was in context of unamended provisions of section 254(2) i.e. prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2016. Therefore, the said decision does not help the cause of Revenue. It is a trite law that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing of Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) of the Act. In the case of Raja Malwinder Singh Vs. Union of India Anr. 2005 (7) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT and Rahul Jee Co. (P) Ltd. 2008 (5) TMI 306 - ITAT DELHI-E . Similar view has been taken in the case of Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra 2018 (4) TMI 1687 - ITAT PUNE . Thus, in view of the facts and the case laws discussed above, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed in limine, being barred by limitation.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal received a Miscellaneous Application from the Revenue seeking rectification in an order dated 31-08-2013 related to the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11. The application was filed with a delay of 89 days, prompting the Revenue to seek condonation of the delay. The Department argued that the limitation for filing the application should be counted from the date of dispatch of the order, citing relevant judgments from the Gujarat High Court and the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal noted that the application was filed beyond the six-month period specified in the amended provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, which came into effect on 01-06-2016.

The Tribunal emphasized that the amended provisions clearly state that the limitation for filing a Miscellaneous Application is six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. The legislative intent was to determine the period of limitation based on the date of passing the order, not the date of service. This interpretation was supported by the comparison with section 253(2) regarding appeals to the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and section 260A related to appeals to the High Court. The Tribunal highlighted that where the Legislature intended to mark the period of limitation from the date of receipt of the order, it did so explicitly in the wording of the relevant sections.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on a decision of the Gujarat High Court, stating that it pertained to the unamended provisions of section 254(2) and was therefore not applicable. It reiterated that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to condone delays in filing Miscellaneous Applications under section 254(2) of the Act. Citing various legal precedents, including decisions from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application as being barred by limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue, emphasizing that it was beyond the permissible period as per the amended provisions of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.