Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1681 - ITAT PUNECondonation of delay in filing of Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) - period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Where the Legislature intended to mark period of limitation from the date of receipt of the order by the parties to the lis, the sections and the sub-sections have been worded in unambiguous manner to convey the intent. No further interpretation of sections or intentions are required. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of status that where the meaning are self explanatory from the provisions and the provisions of section can be interpreted literally no further interpretation is required. We further find that the reliance by the Revenue on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Liladhar T. Khushlani Vs. Commissioner of Custom [2017 (2) TMI 200 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is misplaced. The said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was in context of unamended provisions of section 254(2) i.e. prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2016. Therefore, the said decision does not help the cause of Revenue. It is a trite law that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing of Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) of the Act. In the case of Raja Malwinder Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. [2005 (7) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and Rahul Jee & Co. (P) Ltd. [2008 (5) TMI 306 - ITAT DELHI-E] . Similar view has been taken in the case of Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra [2018 (4) TMI 1687 - ITAT PUNE] . Thus, in view of the facts and the case laws discussed above, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed in limine, being barred by limitation.
|