9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 396 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - all the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed by this Tribunal by orders dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 on the ground that the Revenue has not obtained the clearance of Committee on Disputes for filing these appeals - Held that - The petitions filed by the Revenue on 15.01.2013 praying for recall the orders of this Tribunal dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 is beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 254(2) of the Act and after lapse of substantial time from the date of judgment of Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (2011 (2) TMI 3 - Supreme Court ). Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the Revenue has no merit at all.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the Revenue beyond the four-year period from the date of the Tribunal's orders. 2. Determination of whether the Tribunal's orders dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 were interim or final orders under Section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Analysis of judgments from Jharkhand High Court, Bombay High Court, and Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding similar issues. Issue 1: Maintainability of Miscellaneous Petitions The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Petitions beyond the four-year period from the date of the Tribunal's orders, seeking recall based on the Apex Court's judgment in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India. The Revenue argued that the limitation period should be computed from the date of the Apex Court judgment. However, the assessee's representative contended that the petitions were time-barred, citing judgments from various High Courts. The Tribunal noted that the petitions filed on 15.01.2013 were beyond the limitation period under Section 254(2) of the Act, rendering them not maintainable. Issue 2: Nature of Tribunal's Orders The Tribunal examined whether the orders dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 were interim or final orders under Section 254(1) of the Act. Referring to the Bombay High Court's decision in Air India Ltd., it was established that these were final orders, not interim ones, which impacted the applicability of the limitation period for seeking recall. Issue 3: Analysis of High Court Judgments The Tribunal analyzed judgments from Jharkhand High Court, Bombay High Court, and Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding similar issues. These judgments emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory timelines and the finality of orders. The decisions highlighted that delays in seeking recall beyond the prescribed period could not be justified, even in light of subsequent legal developments. The Tribunal, aligning with the principles established in these judgments, dismissed the Revenue's Miscellaneous Petitions, concluding that they lacked merit due to being time-barred and filed after a substantial lapse of time from the relevant Apex Court judgment. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all three Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the Revenue on 15.01.2013, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and upholding the finality of orders. The judgment was pronounced on 29th July 2016 in Chennai.
|
