Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 691 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTLimitation prescribed under Section 254(2) - application under Section 254(2) stating that he was not able to attend the date of hearing in respect of his appeal preferred before the Tribunal as the authorized representative of the assessee was not well - scope of amendment in respect of limitation - Held that:- Keeping in view the judgment delivered by their lordships in the M.P. Steel Corporation [2015 (4) TMI 849 - SUPREME COURT] in the present case also the new law of limitation providing a shorter period cannot certainly extinguish a vested right of action. The amendment has been made effective virtually in case of assessee with retrospective effect though the amendment does not show that it is applicable with retrospective effect, however, the existing right has been extinguished with retrospective effect in case of the assessee. In the considered opinion of this Court, the legislature should have granted some time to the assessees who could have filed an appeal within a period of four years and the same has not been done till the amendment came into force extinguishing the right to file an appeal. In the considered opinion of this Court, application preferred by the assessee should not have been dismissed by the Tribunal on account of the amendment which has reduced the period of limitation of four years to six months. Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the respondent on 23/12/2016 is hereby quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the application preferred under Section 254(2) on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
|