9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 903 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - period of limitation - HELD THAT - As noticed that the M.A is filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 30.8.2019 and therefore, the M.A. ought to have been filed on or before 28.2.2020, whereas this M.A has been filed on 24.9.2020. Therefore, this M.A is barred by limitation.
Issues:
- Timeliness of filing a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the timeliness of filing a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The M.A. filed by the Revenue sought rectification of an alleged mistake in the Tribunal's order. However, the M.A. was filed beyond the prescribed time limit of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, rendering it barred by limitation. The Revenue requested condonation of the delay, citing the need for instructions from the Assessing Officer (A.O). The Tribunal referred to previous cases where it was held that delay in filing M.A. cannot be condoned beyond the statutory period. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to recall an order under section 254(2) is not prohibited and cited relevant legal precedents to support this stance. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of rectification applications under section 254(2) to correct errors apparent from the record. It referenced a case where the Tribunal recalled its order due to a mistake in ignoring a procedural mandate. The judgment clarified that an order passed in breach of tribunal rules is irregular but not void, emphasizing the need for legal proceedings to establish invalidity. Legal principles from Supreme Court cases were also cited to underscore the significance of setting aside even void orders within the limitation period. The Tribunal addressed specific questions regarding the Tribunal's power to dismiss appeals and the applicability of sections 254(1) and 254(2) of the Act in the context of recalling orders. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the M.A. filed by the Revenue as non-maintainable, aligning with previous judicial decisions and the statutory limitation period of four years under section 254(2) of the Act. The judgment concluded by emphasizing the correctness of the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the M.A. due to being beyond the prescribed time limit, with no order as to costs.
|
