9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (12) TMI 1085 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has made a detailed analysis of the provision of section 254(2) and categorically held that the time-limit of 6 months would have to be computed with reference to the actual receipt of order by the parties. We are duty bound to follow the judicial discipline and obey the decision of Pacific Projects Limited (supra) which has clearly held that the time-limit has to be computed with reference to the date of receipt of order. No other decision of any High Court against this proposition held by Hon ble Delhi High Court has been cited before us. Therefore the Revenue s M/A filed within 6 months with reference to the date of actual receipt of order by Revenue is valid. Consequently, the objection raised by Ld. DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee, however, raised a legal objection stating that the impugned Order dismissing the Revenue s appeal was passed by ITAT on 31.01.2022 and the present M/A is filed by Revenue on 25.08.2022. Ld. AR invited our attention to the provision of section 254(2) whereunder this M/A is filed; that reads as under: (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 assessee or the Assessing Officer: 5. Ld. AR submitted that the language of section 254(2) is very clear which provides for filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on 08.05.2017 was time-barred. Accordingly, the Hon ble Pune Bench dismissed assessee s M/A. This way, relying upon these judicial rulings, Ld. AR argued that in the present case too, the Revenue s M/A must be dismissed. 6. Ld. DR, however, submitted that although the Bench passed impugned order on 31.01.2022, it was served upon Revenue on 28.04.2022. Ld. DR submitted that unless the order reaches to party, how it would come to know about the result of appeal and how it would take a conscious decision for filing of M/A, if required. Ld. DR placed a hypothetical but practical situation that supposedly the impugned Order would not have been served upto 31.08.2022, the time-limit for filing of M/A would have expired and in that case the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Golden Times Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT being W.P. (C) No. 402/2020 dated 13th January, 2020 wherein it has been held as under: 10. Be that as it may, the real question before us is as to what would be the relevant date for the purpose of commencement of period of limitation. To hold the date of the order to be the relevant date for the purpose of calculating the period of six months envisaged under Section 254(2) of the Act, can lead to several absurd and anomalous situations. An order passed without the knowledge of the aggrieved party, would render the remedy against the order meaningless as the same would be lost by limitation while the person aggrieved would not even know that an order ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of limitation of six months should commence from the date of the receipt of the order. In our opinion, the limitation would begin to run when the affected person has the knowledge of the decision. The date when the order was passed cannot be solely determined by referring to the date when the same was signed by the ITAT. We further find that under Section 254(3) of the Act, the law stipulates that the ITAT shall send a copy of the order passed by it to the assessee and the Principal Commissioner. Further, Rule 35 of the ITAT Rules also requires that the orders are required to be communicated to the parties. For ready reference, Section 254(3) of the Act and the relevant rule are reproduced hereinunder: 254. Orders of Appellate Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T at the first instance, by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, and then compounding the same by refusing to entertain the application for recall of the order, cannot be sustained. We, therefore have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 29th July, 2019 is quashed and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we also set-aside the ex-parte order dated 1st September 2017 with a direction that the ITAT shall hear and dispose of ITA No. 6686/De1/2013 on merits after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing. 8. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the provisions of section 254(2) in the light of decisions cited before us. Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
