2017 (7) TMI 434 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - condonation of delay in filing application / petition - Held that - We have no doubt in our mind that there is an apparent mistake in the order dated 07.04.2016 as the Tribunal has not decided the appeals of the assessee on merit but dismissed the same inlimini for want of prosecution. However, the question of rectification of mistake cannot be entertained until and unless the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is found to be maintainable. The miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee are beyond the period of 6 months from 01.06.2016 and therefore the same are barred by limitation. In the absence of any provision to condone the delay under the Income Tax Act, it may be a case of omission in the provision of Act which cannot be supplied by us when there is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. In view of the facts as well as the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. ITAT and others (2013 (10) TMI 1085 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) we hold that the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee are beyond the period of limitation as provided under section 254(2) and are not maintainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of order dated 07.04.2016 by the Appellate Tribunal for nonprosecution of appeals.
2. Maintainability of miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Act.
3. Application of limitation period for rectification of mistake apparent from the record.
4. Interpretation of the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act regarding the power of the Tribunal to recall an order.

Issue 1 - Recall of Order:
The assessee sought recalling of the order dated 07.04.2016 by the Tribunal due to nonprosecution of appeals. The assessee argued that the dismissal of the appeals without proceeding on merits was a mistake apparent on record and requested an opportunity for hearing and deciding the appeals on merits.

Issue 2 - Maintainability of Miscellaneous Petitions:
The Departmental Representative opposed the miscellaneous applications, citing the limitation period under section 254(2) of the Act. The applications were filed after the 6-month limitation period post the amendment in the Act, making them not maintainable as per the provisions.

Issue 3 - Limitation Period for Rectification:
The Tribunal analyzed the amendment in section 254(2) reducing the limitation period for rectification of mistake apparent from the record to 6 months. The Tribunal highlighted the implications of the reduced time frame and the absence of provisions for condonation of delay in filing such petitions after the specified period.

Issue 4 - Interpretation of Section 254(2):
The Tribunal examined the interpretation of section 254(2) of the Act in light of the power of the Tribunal to recall an order. Referring to a case before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Tribunal discussed the scope of rectification applications and the Tribunal's jurisdiction to recall an order based on rectification applications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee as they were beyond the limitation period provided under section 254(2) of the Act. The decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions and the absence of provisions for condonation of delay. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal principles established in relevant case laws, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations in filing rectification applications.