2017 (9) TMI 1574 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification application - period of limitation - Held that - No force in these miscellaneous petitions primarily because of the reason that the Statute does not authorize us to entertain any petition which has been filed u/s 254(2) at any time beyond a period of six months from the date of the order. The Tribunal has been given power to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period as per Section 253(5). However, this Tribunal is not enshrined with such powers in respect of a miscellaneous petition filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. If we are not given that power, then it is not expected from us to exercise such power which is not provided in the Act. The Tribunal, being creation of law, is bound by the statutory provisions and our jurisdiction is simply to interpret and follow the Statute. There is no scope for us to import any word into the Statute which is not there. Such importation would be nothing but to amend the Statute. Miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are barred by limitation and accordingly they are dismissed as unadmitted.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of orders passed by ITAT 'B' Bench, Hyderabad based on the provisions of Sec. 254(2) of the IT Act before and after the amendment in 2016.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of rectification of orders passed by the ITAT 'B' Bench, Hyderabad in light of the provisions of Sec. 254(2) of the IT Act. The key contention revolves around the timeline for filing a Miscellaneous Application post the amendment in 2016, which substituted the earlier period of 'four years' with 'six months'. The assessee argues that the amendment is not retrospective and, therefore, the application filed in 2017 falls within the old provision's timeline, valid until 2019. Conversely, the Revenue cites a case from the ITAT 'J' Bench, Mumbai, asserting that the amendment is clarificatory and retrospective, allowing consideration of the limitation period from 01-06-2016 for all orders. The Tribunal emphasizes that the statute does not differentiate between orders pre and post the amendment date, holding that the power to entertain a petition under Sec. 254(2) is limited to six months from the order date. The Tribunal rejects the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, aligning with the Mumbai Tribunal's decision, and dismisses the applications as time-barred.

In the absence of any contrary decisions presented by the assessee's counsel, the Tribunal relies on the precedent and holds that the miscellaneous applications are time-barred and, therefore, dismissed as unadmitted. The judgment underscores the Tribunal's bound duty to interpret and adhere to statutory provisions, lacking the authority to extend the limitation period beyond what is explicitly provided in the Act. The decision emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to statutory timelines and the limitation period prescribed under Sec. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.