9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 979 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 254 - present Misc. Application is filed in respect of the order passed in Misc. Application which Tribunal dismissed the same as barred by limitation - HELD THAT - Tribunal may after giving opportunity to both the parties to the appeal rectify the order, but the order was passed in Misc. application and the same is a speaking order which cannot be reviewed by us at this juncture. The case laws submitted by the Ld. AR cannot be dealt in the present Misc. Application as the same are related to the merit of limitation period of filing of earlier Misc. Application and not the present Misc. Application and the earlier Misc. Application is already decided with the detailed order regarding the issue of limitation which we cannot review in the present Misc. Application. The preposition of the Ld. AR amounts to review of its own order dated 07.02.2018 by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law, the remedy in our opinion lies elsewhere, but not before the Tribunal at this juncture. Hence, the present Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 by the ITAT. 2. Filing of a Misc. Application for recalling the order dated 07.02.2018. 3. Dismissal of the Misc. Application by the Tribunal. 4. Legal arguments regarding the limitation period and rectification of the order. Issue 1: Dismissal of the assessee's appeal The assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 was dismissed ex-parte and in limine without any findings on merits. A Misc. Application was filed for restoring the appeal, which was dismissed as time-barred by the ITAT based on the reduced period of 6 months for rectifying a mistake under section 254(2) introduced by the Finance Act, 2016. The assessee contended that the dismissal was contrary to Rule 24 of ITAT Rules and cited various legal precedents supporting the argument that matters of default should be decided on merits after hearing the respondent. Issue 2: Filing of a Misc. Application The assessee filed a Misc. Application against the dismissal of the earlier application, arguing that the order was beyond the limitation period and should be recalled for hearing on merits. The AR submitted that the amendment in section 254(2) applied only to orders passed after 01/06/2016 and not to those before, citing relevant case laws and legal principles to support the contention that the application was validly presented within the limitation period. Issue 3: Dismissal of the Misc. Application The Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently opposed the Misc. Application, arguing that it was against the statute to file an application against the order of another application. The Tribunal noted that the present application was filed against the dismissal of the earlier application, which was not maintainable as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the order dated 07.02.2018 was a speaking order and could not be reviewed at that juncture, dismissing the present Misc. Application. Issue 4: Legal arguments regarding the limitation period The AR argued that the Tribunal's dismissal of the Misc. Application as time-barred was a mistake apparent on record as the order in the appeal was passed before the amendment's effective date. The Tribunal, however, held that the arguments raised by the AR were related to the earlier application's limitation period, which had already been decided, and could not be reviewed in the present application. The Tribunal concluded that the remedy for the assessee lay elsewhere, not before the Tribunal, dismissing the Misc. Application. In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Misc. Application filed by the assessee, upholding the earlier dismissal of the appeal for A.Y. 2008-09. The Tribunal found that the arguments raised by the assessee were not applicable to the present application and that the order dated 07.02.2018 could not be reviewed at that stage. The decision highlighted the limitations of filing applications against orders of previous applications and the statutory provisions governing the rectification of orders based on apparent mistakes on record.
|
