9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1145 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 254 - period of limitation of 6 months - Miscellaneous Petitions with regard to deduction u/s. 80P - HELD THAT - Tribunal is a creature of the statute. It has not having power to read in or read out of a provision of law. The Legislature in its wisdom has laid down the law and the specific provision relating to the powers of rectification of mistakes in the order of the Tribunal is in section 254(2). As per section 254(2) the Tribunal may at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, it could amend the same if the mistake apparent on record is brought to its notice by the assessee or by the AO. It shows that the time limit of six months is binding on the hands of the Tribunal. This is in line with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. ITAT 2020 (2) TMI 129 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . As six month period from the end of the month in which the orders were passed has expired, the orders passed by the Tribunal in the above cases cannot be disturbed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.
Issues:
1. Recall of orders by Revenue seeking deduction u/s. 80P of the I.T. Act. 2. Timeliness of filing Miscellaneous Petitions beyond the prescribed limit. Analysis: 1. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Petitions to recall Tribunal orders on deduction u/s. 80P of the I.T. Act, citing a subsequent Full Bench decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. The High Court held that the earlier decision followed by the Tribunal was not good law, requiring an inquiry by the Assessing Officer into the factual situation of the assessee-society's activities. The Revenue argued that the High Court's decision constituted a mistake apparent from the record, justifying the recall of the orders. 2. The Assessee contended that the Miscellaneous Petitions were filed beyond the statutory time limit of six months from the end of the month in which the orders were passed, as per section 254(2) of the I.T. Act. The Assessee emphasized that the Tribunal lacked the power to condone the delay in filing, and thus, the petitions should be dismissed. The Tribunal noted that it could only rectify mistakes within the specified time frame as per the statute. 3. The Tribunal highlighted the provisions of section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, emphasizing the limitation of six months for rectification of orders. It pointed out that the belated filing of the Miscellaneous Petitions was evident from the timeline provided, rendering them time-barred. Citing a decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal reiterated the binding nature of the statutory time limit, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's petitions. 4. As the six-month period from the passing of the orders had lapsed, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked the authority to disturb the orders in question. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the Revenue, underscoring the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in seeking rectification or recall of orders. 5. In the final pronouncement, the Tribunal officially dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous applications, upholding the principle of statutory time limits and the inability of the Tribunal to entertain belated petitions for order recall or rectification. Judges: - Shri Chandra Poojari, AM - Shri George Mathan, JM
|
