Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1677 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 254 - Appeal challenged by the assessees after a period of 04 years - HELD THAT:- In the case of Parsuram Potteries Works Co. Ltd [1976 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] observed that stale issues should not be re-activated beyond a particular stage and there must be a point of finality in all the legal proceedings; lapse of time must induce or set at rest all judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in others spheres of human activity. A proper approach is to challenge the order before a higher Forum, either under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act or in writ jurisdiction, by taking immediate steps, after disposal of the appeals. Here is a case where there was more than 07 years delay and in fact, the assessees did not choose to pursue such a kind of remedy. At the same time, assessee submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be treated as an order passed under section 254(1) - Section 254(2) of the Act speaks of rectifying mistakes in the orders passed under section 254(1) of the Act and if the assessees claim that there was no order passed under section 254(1), there is no right of filing a petition u/s 254(2) of the Act. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal u/s 254(1) of the I.T. Act and in the given circumstances, dismissal of the appeals is the only conclusion that can be drawn which could have been challenged by the assessees within a period of 04 years and beyond such period the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay and therefore, the M.As are not maintainable. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution - Even if it is presumed that the Tribunal has got the power to condone the delay the reasons given by the assessees herein are vague and not supported by proper evidence and therefore, it has to be concluded that the assessees have no sufficient cause for the delay in filing M.As. If the assessees claim that the common order passed by the Tribunal in 2008, dismissing the appeals for want of prosecution, cannot be equated to an order passed under section 254(1) of the I.T. Act and therefore, section 254(2) does not come into play and consequently, the period of limitation does not apply, then the remedy to the assessees would have been to approach an appropriate Forum to challenge the order which is claimed to be invalid in law. But the assessees chose not to prefer either appeal or writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and thus, by efflux of time it has attained finality and such stale issues should not be reactivated at this stage in the light of observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsuram Potteries Works Co. Ltd., vs. ITO [1976 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] - M.As filed by the assessees are dismissed.
|