2017 (8) TMI 1250 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - period of limitation - Unexplained investment - assessee seeks recall of the order on the ground that the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee did not furnish any evidence with regard unexplained investment, overlooking the fact that written submissions were filed with contained detailed explanation - Held that - Section 254(2) of the Act refers to the period of limitation reckoning from the end of the month in which the order is passed and not from the date of receipt of the order . As rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR, the expressions passed initiated and served/received are not interchangeable and the legislature in its wisdom expressly used the phraseology depending on the intention. In the instant case, the expression passed cannot be stretched to mean that the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the order. The assessee has not followed due diligence. It was also referred that even the date of order is not placed on record. In such an event we are afraied that we have no authority to interpret the expression passed as being akin to the receipt of the order . Since, the MA is filed beyond the period of limitation even reckoned from the date of uploading in website, we have no other alternative except to dismiss the application as being barred by limitation. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of the order based on the contention of the assessee regarding the furnishing of evidence.
2. Interpretation of the time limit for seeking recall under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Consideration of the period of limitation in the context of the date of receipt of the order.

Analysis:

1. The assessee sought a recall of the order, claiming that the Tribunal erred in holding that no evidence was furnished regarding unexplained investment, despite detailed explanations in written submissions. The Tribunal's practice allows for a six-month period from the end of the month in which the order was passed for seeking a recall under section 254(2) of the Act. The assessee filed the recall application within this period, arguing that substantial justice must prevail, citing precedents emphasizing the importance of serving the order on parties to avoid delays. The assessee contended that the expression "order was passed" should be construed as the "date of receipt of the order" to enable parties to seek rectification within the limitation period.

2. The dispute arose over the interpretation of the period of limitation under section 254(2) of the Act. The assessee argued that the time taken to obtain a copy of the order should be considered while calculating the limitation period. Conversely, the Revenue contended that the term "passed" in the provision clearly indicates that the limitation period should not be reckoned from the date of receipt of the order but from the date the order was passed. The Tribunal concurred with the Revenue's interpretation, emphasizing that the expressions "passed," "initiated," and "served/received" have distinct meanings as intended by the legislature. The Tribunal held that the limitation period should start from the date of passing the order and not from the date of receipt.

3. The Tribunal further deliberated on whether the date of uploading the order could be considered as the date of service. It noted that the order was uploaded on a specific date, which could be deemed as the service date, especially since public access to the order would have been available. Referring to a judgment of the Madras High Court, the Tribunal highlighted that the date of service was crucial in determining the limitation period. Despite the assessee's argument for a liberal view, the Tribunal dismissed the recall application as being beyond the limitation period, even if calculated from the date of uploading, emphasizing that due diligence was not followed by the assessee. Consequently, the application was rejected as barred by limitation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the interpretation of the limitation period under section 254(2) of the Act, emphasizing the significance of the date of passing the order in computing the period for seeking a recall. The application for recall was dismissed due to being filed beyond the limitation period, irrespective of the date considered for reckoning the limitation.