Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (4) TMI 396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder sub Section (1) with a view to rectify any mistake apparent on the record, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the A.O. The Petitioner admittedly did not file any application under Section 254(2) and the period of four years for filing such an application has now elapsed. The petition has been filed almost five and a half years after the order of the Tribunal with no reasonable or cogent explanation for the delay. As we have noted already, there is no merit in the alternate submission that the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007 left open all the grounds of appeal. Plainly that was not so. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ormulated three grounds of appeal which were as follows : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) erred in rejecting the claim of the Appellant for deduction under Section 80HH, 80I and 80IA of the Income Tax Act (`the Act') on LPG Plants on the grounds that activities undertaken in the LPG Plant would only amount to processing, the LPG Plants are not `industrial undertakings' engaged in `manufacture of production of any article or thing' and therefore, the Appellant is not entitled to claim any deduction in respect of its LPG plants under aforesaid Sections of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), er .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4 November 2008 for giving effect to the order of the Tribunal. The A.O., according to the Petitioner, only dealt with the issue of the allowability of a deduction in respect of LPG bottling units and not with the other issues which were the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the A.O. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) on 26 October 2010. The Petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal which is pending. 6. The Petitioner has now sought to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007. The contention of the Petitioner is that though three grounds of appeal were raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had only dealt with the first ground relating t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und relating to the denial of a deduction under Sections 80HH, 80I and 80IA. That was what was restored by the Tribunal for consideration by the A.O. upon remand. 8. The Petitioner had a remedy under Section 254(2) under which the Appellate Tribunal is empowered at any time, within four years from the date of its order, to amend any order passed by it under sub Section (1) with a view to rectify any mistake apparent on the record, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the A.O. The Petitioner admittedly did not file any application under Section 254(2) and the period of four years for filing such an application has now elapsed. After the order of the Tribunal was passed, the A.O. passed an order to give effect to the o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der Section 254(2) before the Tribunal within the stipulated period of four years. These proceedings have been instituted on 3 October 2012 nearly about five years and five months after the order of the Tribunal. There is no valid explanation for the delay in moving this Court either. 10. In the circumstances, we find no reason or justification to entertain the request for setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007, particularly after the lapse of time that is prescribed in the statutory remedy available under Section 254(2). The petition has been filed almost five and a half years after the order of the Tribunal with no reasonable or cogent explanation for the delay. As we have noted already, there is no merit in the alter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates