9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. Hita Land Private Ltd. Ors, [ 2017 (4) TMI 1256 - ITAT MUMBAI] . As in the instant case the appellant had filed miscellaneous application on 03.06.2014 i.e., much before said amendment dated 01.06.2016, therefore, in the impugned order the learned tribunal has wrongly mentioned that facts of the instant case and facts of the case of Hita Land Private Ltd. [ 2017 (4) TMI 1256 - ITAT MUMBAI] are similar. The said order passed in Hita Land Private Ltd. [ 2017 (4) TMI 1256 - ITAT MUMBAI] by the Mumbai Bench of I.T.A.T. is in the teeth of a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Peterplast Synthetics (P.) Ltd. [ 2015 (2) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the High Court has held that once it is found that the rectification application u/s 254(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 has been submitted within a period of four years from the date of actual receipt of the judgment and order passed by the tribunal, which is sought to be reviewed, petitioner is entitled to relief. In the case of Sree Ayyanar Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. [ 2008 (5) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT] has an occasion to interpret section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, wherein the fact in short was that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the learned I.T.A.T. and the learned tribunal, vide its order dated 23.12.2009, passed in I.T.(S.S.)A. No. 58/PAT/2007, reversed the order passed by the C.I.T. (Appeals). It further transpires that the said order was communicated to the petitioner, vide letter dated 02.08.2010 (Annexure 3), by the Assistant Registrar, I.T.A.T. Patna. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application before the tribunal praying therein for reconsideration of the matter on certain grounds (Annexure 4). The said miscellaneous application has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground of limitation; hence the appellant filed the instant appeal. 3. After hearing both the parties, this court, vide its order dated 28.04.2022, admitted the instant appeal on following questions of law. I Whether under the facts and circumstances and in law, the tribunal is justified in dismissing the M.A. filed by the appellant on the ground of limitation without considering the law existing on the date of filing of the said M.A. i.e. Section 254 (2)? II Whether the findings recorded by the I.T.A.T., Ranchi Bench, Ranchi is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Biren Poddar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assesse or the Assessing Officer. The above section 254(2) of the Act was amended w.e.f. 01.06.2016 by Finance Act, 2016 and after its amendment the said section reads as under:- 254(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time *[within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed], with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assesse or the Assessing Officer: * Substituted for four years from the date of the order by the Finance Act, 2016, w.e.f. 1-6-2016 8. Thus, the effect of such amendment is that prior to amendment of Section 254(2), the assessee could bring to the notice of the appellate tribunal within 4 years from the date of the order for rectifying any mistake apparent from the record but after the amendment of the said section w.e.f. 01.06.2016, the same could be brought to the notice of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.T. is in the teeth of a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Peterplast Synthetics (P.) Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2014)44 taxman.com 302, para- 12 and 13 ; wherein the High Court has held that once it is found that the rectification application u/s 254(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 has been submitted within a period of four years from the date of actual receipt of the judgment and order passed by the tribunal, which is sought to be reviewed, petitioner is entitled to relief. Further, in the case of Sree Ayyanar Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2008) 17 SCC 203 the Hon ble Supreme Court has an occasion to interpret section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, wherein the fact in short was that miscellaneous application u/s 254 (2) of the Act was filed well within four years for rectification of the order and it was the Tribunal which took its own time to dispose of the said application and the High Court held that application could not have been entertained by the tribunal beyond four years and the Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the said judgment of High Court. The relevant paragraphs 11, 12, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onnection, our attention is also invited to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd. v. Union of India [(2002) 256 ITR 767 (Raj)] wherein an identical controversy arose for determination and the view taken by that Court was as follows : (ITR p. 767 C-F) Once the assessee has moved the application within four years from the date of appeal, the Tribunal cannot reject that application on the ground that four years have lapsed, which includes the period of pendency of the application before the Tribunal. If the assessee has moved the application within four years from the date of the order, the Tribunal is bound to decide the application on the merits and not on the ground of limitation. Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, lays down that the Appellate Tribunal may at any time within four years from the date of the order rectify the mistake apparent from the record but that does not mean that if the application is moved within the period allowed i.e. four years, and remains pending before the Tribunal, after the expiry of four years the Tribunal can reject the application on the ground of limitation. We are in agreement w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
