9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 917 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay for filing Rectification u/s 254 - HELD THAT - We find that u/s 254(2) of the Act, the M.A has to be filed within six months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal has passed the order. The Revenue has filed this M.A almost after 12 months from the date of passing of the order. This Tribunal, in the case of ACIT vs. Gayathri Infra Ventures Ltd 2018 (7) TMI 1917 - ITAT HYDERABAD has held that the Tribunal does not have the power to condone the delay in filing of the M.A and that the M.A filed beyond the period of six months cannot be entertained 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. Respectfully following the same, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Recall of Tribunal order by Revenue after the due date. 2. Barred by limitation under Section 254(2) of the Act. 3. Power of Tribunal to recall order under Section 254(2) of the Act. Issue 1: Recall of Tribunal order by Revenue after the due date The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A) seeking the recall of the Tribunal's order dated 10.08.2018 after the due date. The Department claimed that the case fell under the exceptions specified in Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018. However, the Counsel for the assessee argued that the M.A was filed after the prescribed period under Section 254(2) of the Act, making it time-barred. Issue 2: Barred by limitation under Section 254(2) of the Act The Tribunal noted that as per Section 254(2) of the Act, an M.A must be filed within six months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal passed the order. The Revenue filed the M.A almost 12 months after the order. Citing a previous decision, the Tribunal held that it lacked the power to condone delays in filing M.A beyond the prescribed period, thus dismissing the Revenue's application as barred by limitation. Issue 3: Power of Tribunal to recall order under Section 254(2) of the Act The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Bombay High Court and a decision of the Apex Court to analyze the power of the Tribunal to recall its order under Section 254(2) of the Act. It was established that the Tribunal could recall its order on rectification application made under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal clarified that an order passed in breach of Tribunal Rules is irregular but not void, and even if void, it remains effective until set aside by a competent Tribunal. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's M.A as it was filed beyond the limitation period specified under Section 254(2) of the Act. The decision was based on precedents highlighting the Tribunal's lack of authority to condone delays in such filings. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and clarified the Tribunal's powers regarding the recall of its orders under the relevant provisions of the Act.
|
