2017 (4) TMI 1309 - AT - Income Tax

Provision of rectification of mistake apparent from record u/s 254 - maintainability of petition - period of limitation - petition beyond the period of 6 months - Held that - There is an apparent mistake in the order dated 04.01.2016 as the Tribunal has not decided the appeals of the assessee on merit but dismissed the same in limine for want of prosecution. However the question of rectification of mistake cannot be entertained until and unless the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is found to be maintainable. The miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee is beyond the period of 6 months from 04.01.2016 and therefore the same is barred by limitation. In the absence of any provision to condone the delay under the Income Tax Act it may be a case of omission in the provision of Act which cannot be supplied by us when there is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. See Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. ITAT and others 2013 (10) TMI 1085 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of order dismissed for non-prosecution due to communication gap.
2. Maintainability of miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Act.
3. Limitation period for rectification of mistake apparent from record.
4. Interpretation of provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Limitation Act.
5. Application of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case.

Issue 1:
The assessee filed a miscellaneous petition seeking the recalling of an order dated 04.01.2016, where the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to a communication gap between the assessee and its representative.

Issue 2:
The learned DR opposed the miscellaneous application, arguing that it is not maintainable as it is barred by limitations under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the application was filed beyond the 6-month limitation period set by the amendment in section 254(2), reducing the time for rectification of mistakes from 4 years to 6 months.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal analyzed the limitation period for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record, emphasizing that the amendment reduced the time to 6 months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory limitations in the absence of provisions for condonation of delays.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal interpreted the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the special statute prevails over the general statute. It noted that prior to the amendment, there was no provision for condonation of delays in filing petitions for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record after the 4-year limitation period.

Issue 5:
Referring to a decision by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal discussed the power of the Tribunal to recall an order on a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of rectifying errors apparent from the record and the consequences of such rectifications leading to a fresh hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous petition as it was beyond the limitation period provided under section 254(2) of the Act, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations.