9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 853 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay in filing of the Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) - M.A. is filed by the revenue beyond the due date as prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Act i.e. within six months from the date of the order - HELD THAT - In view of order in the case of ACIT vs. Gayathri Infra Ventures Ltd 2018 (7) TMI 1917 - ITAT HYDERABAD , this M.A. is not maintainable. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Muni Naga Reddy Vs. ACIT 2018 (8) TMI 1261 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT also has held that the Tribunal cannot condone the delay in filing of the Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) of the Act. - Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application (M.A) filed by the revenue beyond the prescribed time limit under section 254(2) of the Act. 2. Judicial interpretation of the power of the Tribunal under section 254(2) to recall or rectify its earlier order. 3. Precedents set by the Bombay High Court, Gujarat High Court, and the Supreme Court regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to recall its order. 4. Application of the Tribunal Rules and legal principles to determine the validity of the M.A filed by the Revenue. Issue 1: Maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application (M.A): The judgment discusses the limitation period for filing a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Act, emphasizing that the Tribunal lacks the power to condone delays beyond the specified time frame. It cites the case of ACIT vs. Gayathri Infra Ventures Ltd to support this view, stating that the Tribunal cannot entertain M.A beyond the six-month limit from the order date. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing such applications. Issue 2: Judicial interpretation of Tribunal's power to recall or rectify orders: The judgment delves into the interpretation of the Tribunal's authority under section 254(2) to rectify or recall its orders. It references the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs. ITAT to illustrate that the Tribunal can rectify errors apparent on the record, leading to a fresh hearing if necessary. The judgment emphasizes that the power to recall an order is not prohibited under section 254(2) and cites the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited to support this stance. Issue 3: Precedents set by higher courts regarding Tribunal's jurisdiction: The judgment cites various legal precedents, including decisions by the Bombay High Court, Gujarat High Court, and the Supreme Court, to establish the Tribunal's jurisdiction to recall its order under section 254(2). It emphasizes that the Tribunal can rectify errors on the face of the record, leading to the recall of the original order if necessary. The judgment highlights the principle that justice prevails above all, justifying the Tribunal's exercise of power under section 254(2) to recall its earlier order. Issue 4: Application of Tribunal Rules and legal principles: The judgment discusses the application of Rule 24 of the Tribunal Rules, stating that an order passed in breach of the rule is irregular but not void. It underscores that even if an order is void, it remains effective until set aside by a competent authority. The judgment refers to legal principles outlined by the Supreme Court in various cases to emphasize the need to adhere to statutory timelines for challenging or recalling orders, even if they are considered void. In conclusion, the judgment dismisses the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue as it was beyond the prescribed time limit, following legal precedents and interpretations regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to recall or rectify its orders. The decision underscores the significance of complying with statutory timelines and legal principles in seeking redressal through the Tribunal.
|
