9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... miscellaneous petition filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. If we are not given that power, then it is not expected from us to exercise such power which is not provided in the Act. The Tribunal, being creation of law, is bound by the statutory provisions and our jurisdiction is simply to interpret and follow the Statute. There is no scope for us to import any word into the Statute which is not there. Such importation would be nothing but to amend the Statute. Miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are barred by limitation and accordingly they are dismissed as unadmitted. - M.A. No. 12/Hyd/2017, ITA No. 988/Hyd/2015, M.A. No. 13/Hyd/2017, ITA No. 990/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2017 - Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is regard the Tribunal observed as under: 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. Since, Preliminary legal objections questions the very admissibility of these rectification application, we take up the same first. For record, we note that the date of order passed by the Tribunal is 22-03-2013 and the revenue has filed these applications on 28-02-2017 which are clearly beyond a period of six months as provided in Section 254(2). At this juncture, it would be prudent to reproduce the relevant provisions as contained in Section 254(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961:- Orders of Appellant Tribunal. 254. (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Act. If we are not given that power, then it is not expected from us to exercise such power which is not provided in the Act. The Tribunal, being creation of law, is bound by the statutory provisions and our jurisdiction is simply to interpret and follow the Statute. There is no scope f or us to import any word into the Statute which is not there. Such importation would be nothing but to amend the Statute. We therefore hold that the condonation of delay of these petitions is beyond our jurisdiction, hence rejected. Similar view has been taken by the Mumbai Tribunal in the cited order. Hence, finding the petitions time barring, we dismiss the same. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee could not place before us an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
