9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. This M.A. is filed by the Revenue u/s 254(2) of the I. T. Act seeking rectification of the alleged mistake in the order of the Tribunal. However, it is noticed that the M.A is filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 30.8.2019 and therefore, the M.A. ought to have been filed on or before 28.2.2020, whereas this M.A has been filed on 24.9.2020. Therefore, this M.A is barred by limitation. The learned DR has prayed for condonation of delay, but in a similar case before this Tribunal in M.A.33/Hyd/2020, the Tribunal has held as under: 2. The captioned Miscellaneous Application was filed on 24/07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier order dated 6 December 2007 for which the miscellaneous application was filed on 6 August 2012. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the application under Section 254(1) of the Act would be the only provision under which an application could be made for recall of an order, as under Section 254(2) of the Act only the order can be rectified but cannot be recalled. We find that there is an error apparent on record and the miscellaneous application is to correct the error apparent from the record. The consequence of such rectification application being allowed may lead to a fresh hearing in the matter after having recalled the original order. However, the recall, if any, is only as a consequence of rectifying the original order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch also dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Apex Court observed that the Tribunal in its original order while dismissing the Stock Exchange (assessee's) appeal overlooked binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court. This mistake was corrected by the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the rectification of an order stands on the fundamental principle that justice is above all and upheld the exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Act by the Tribunal in recalling its earlier order dated 27 October 2000. Thus recall of an order is not barred on rectification application being made by one of the parties. In these circumstances, the application would be an application for rectification of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible, for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining a decision of Court. 3. Further, the Supreme Court in Sneh Gupta v/s. Dev Sarup (2009) 6 SCC 194 has observed as under: We are concerned herein with the question of limitation. The compromise decree, as indicated herein before, even if void was required to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
