9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s than Rs. 50 lakh as prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 08.08.2019. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case records perused. 3. Ld. DR representing the Applicant-Revenue filed a letter F.No. Pr. CIT/(Central)/BPL/260A/20-21/967 dated 12.08.2022 along with Office Order of even date of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal and submitted that the tax effect was in fact Rs. 66.07 lakh; therefore the Revenue's appeal has been wrongly dismissed treating the tax effect less than Rs. 50 lakh. Hence, Ld. DR prays, the Revenue's Appeal was maintainable and could not have been dismissed. Ld. DR submits that the appeal must be restored and properly adjudicated. 4. Ld. AR representing the assessee, howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d) as prescribed in section 254(2). Ld. AR also relied upon decision of ITAT, Pune Bench in Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra, Nashik Vs. DCIT, Nashik, M.A. No. 38/Pun/2017 dated 04.04.2018 wherein the original order of ITAT was passed on 29.07.2016; the assessee received order on 07.11.2016 and thereafter filed M/A on 08.05.2017 (6th and 7th May were closed holidays). The assessee claimed that the M/A filed within 6 months from date of actual receipt of order was well within time and must be allowed. However, the ITAT held that in terms of provision of section 254(2), the limitation period of 6 months started from 01.08.2016 (i.e. from end of the month in which the order was passed by ITAT) and ended on 31.01.2017; therefore the M/A filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 months of the actual receipt of the order, is valid. For the sake of immediate reference, the said order is extracted below: "7. This Court is also of the view that the ITAT has erroneously concluded that the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation under Section 254(2) of the Act in as much as the petitioner had filed the miscellaneous application within six months of actual receipt of the order. If the petitioner/assessee had no notice and no knowledge of the order passed by the ITAT, it cannot be said that the limitation would start from the date the order was pronounced by the Tribunal. 8. In fact, the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner/assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an interpretation which would enable an aggrieved party to avail its remedy in a meaningful manner, so that the right conferred by a provision does not remain fanciful or illusionary. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 12. As noted above, Section 254(2) of the Act has undergone certain amendments. However, there is no dispute that the provision still retains the distinctive two parts as observed by the Supreme Court in the above noted case. We are presently concerned with a scenario under Section 254(2) of the Act where the assessee has invoked its jurisdiction seeking rectification / amendment of the order passed by the ITAT. In this situation, the assessee has claimed that it did not have the knowledge of the earlier order passed by the ITAT on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied its mind on this aspect and has been swayed by the literal and mechanical construction of the words "six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed". The ITAT failed to even delve into the question whether the affected party, either actually or constructively, was in knowledge of the order passed by the ITAT. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 15. The assessee had challenged the ex parte order dated 18.10.2016 and consequently, keeping in view, the aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the starting point of limitation provided under Section 254(2) of the Act has to commence from the date of the actual receipt of the judgment and order passed by the ITAT which is sought to be the reviewed." 9. For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved in present-appeal. Another decision of ITAT, Pune in Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra, Nashik (supra) relied upon by Ld. AR has, though held that the time-limit cannot be reckoned from date of actual receipt of order, but the same is given by ITAT which is a lower forum than the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Therefore, we are duty bound to follow the judicial discipline and obey the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case 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, respectfully following the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
