2020 (8) TMI 717 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Miscellaneous application beyond limitation period as provided u/s 254(2) - HELD THAT - There is nothing available on record which suggest that the order so dispatched at given address has been returned back unserved by the postal department. Therefore, it is a case where the matter has been pronounced in the open Court on the same day it was heard and thereafter, the order was dispatched and duly delivered to the assessee. It is also a fact that the order has also been uploaded on the Tribunal s website as soon as the same was pronounced. Contention advanced by the AR that the order passed by the Coordinate Bench has not been received by the assessee cannot be accepted. The provisions of section 254(2) has prescribed the limitation period of six months of moving the application from the end of the month in which the order is passed, therefore, the present miscellaneous application filed belatedly is not maintainable. The limitation period is provided in the Act itself and there is no provision for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the miscellaneous application and consequently, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction/power to condone the delay in filing the miscellaneous application. Accordingly, when there is no provision for condonation of delay for filing of the miscellaneous application, then the miscellaneous application filed belatedly is not maintainable being barred by limitation provided under section 254(2) of the Act. Miscellaneous application so filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Miscellaneous Application Filed by the Assessee:
The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the timeliness of the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee. The order in question was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 20/06/2017, and the miscellaneous application was filed by the assessee on 02/05/2018. This filing was beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that they did not receive the order and thus could not file the application within the stipulated time. However, the Tribunal noted that the order was pronounced in open court, dispatched to the given address on 06/07/2017 via registered AD, and uploaded on the Tribunal’s website. There was no evidence that the order was returned unserved. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim of non-receipt and ruled that the application was filed beyond the permissible period, making it untimely.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Condon the Delay in Filing the Miscellaneous Application:
The Tribunal examined whether it had the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal reiterated that the limitation period for filing such applications is six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. There is no provision in the Act allowing the Tribunal to condone delays in filing miscellaneous applications. The Tribunal referred to consistent precedents, including the case of Shri Vinod Kumar Singh vs. ITO and ITO vs. Shri Ram Ratan Modi, which upheld that the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the prescribed limitation period. In these cases, the Tribunal emphasized that the amendment to Section 254(2) by the Finance Act, 2016, effective from 01/06/2016, reduced the limitation period from four years to six months, and this amendment is not retrospective. Therefore, any application filed beyond this period is barred by limitation and not maintainable.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee as it was barred by limitation under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal confirmed that it does not have the jurisdiction to condone delays in filing such applications, adhering to the statutory provisions and consistent judicial precedents. The order was pronounced in the open court on 24/08/2020.