2018 (2) TMI 666 - AT - Income Tax

Miscellaneous application being barred by limitation - provision of condonation of delay u/s 254(2) - Held that - In view of the facts and circumstances of the case when the miscellaneous application is barred by limitation and following the earlier order of this Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Shri Ram Ratan Modi 2018 (2) TMI 589 - ITAT JAIPUR) we dismissed the miscellaneous application as not maintainable being barred by limitation.

Issues Involved:
1. Recalling the Tribunal's order due to non-prosecution.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous application.
3. Applicability of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act for condonation of delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recalling the Tribunal's Order Due to Non-Prosecution:

The assessee filed a miscellaneous application seeking to recall the Tribunal's order dated 07.04.2017, which dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee argued that the impugned order was not received until 08.09.2017, prompting the request for condonation of delay in filing the application.

2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Miscellaneous Application:

The Tribunal noted that the miscellaneous application was filed on 19.01.2018, beyond the six-month period from the end of the month in which the order was passed. The Tribunal observed that the certified copy of the order was issued and sent to the assessee on 21.04.2017 to the address provided in Form No. 36. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's plea of delayed receipt of the order, emphasizing that the application was filed beyond the permissible period of six months.

3. Applicability of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act for Condonation of Delay:

The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, which allows rectification of any mistake apparent from the record within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. The Tribunal highlighted that there is no provision under Section 254(2) or any other section of the Income Tax Act to condone the delay in filing a miscellaneous application. The Tribunal referred to a similar case (ITO vs. Shri Ram Ratan Modi) where it was held that the amendment to Section 254(2) effective from 01.06.2016 reduced the limitation period for rectification from four years to six months. The Tribunal noted that this amendment could not be applied retrospectively to extinguish existing rights.

The Tribunal also referenced the Hon'ble M.P. High Court's decision in District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which stated that amendments should not retrospectively extinguish existing rights without providing a transition period. The Tribunal agreed that the amendment to Section 254(2) should be applied prospectively from 01.06.2016, giving a six-month limitation period from the date of the amendment for orders passed before the amendment.

The Tribunal cited the Bangalore Bench's decision in Smt. Padma K. Bhat vs. ACIT, which held that the Tribunal has no power to condone delays beyond the statutory period provided in Section 254(2). The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation period for rectification is strictly governed by the Income Tax Act, and the Limitation Act does not apply.

The Tribunal concluded that the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee was beyond the six-month limitation period and, therefore, not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the application, reiterating that it lacked the authority to condone the delay.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee as it was barred by limitation and not maintainable under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that it had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the application beyond the statutory period. The order was pronounced in the open court on 06/02/2018.

← Previous Next →