TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal has been filed by the assessee on 5.8.2009 i.e. after a period of four years from the date of the order of the Tribunal which is being sought to be rectified. As per the provisions of section 254(2), which are very specific and clear, the Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under section 254(1) with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record at any time within four years from the date of such order. As already noted, the present application itself has been filed by the assessee after a period of four years from the date of the order corresponding order passed u/s. 254(1). In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the statement prepared and furnished by him giving sequence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed within the outer limit of four years and it is, therefore, not possible for the court to read anything else into the said provisions which would otherwise extend the outer limit prescribed therein. The order passed by the Tribunal u/s. 254(2) beyond the period of four years from the date of corresponding order, therefore, was held to be null and void by the Hon ble Madras High Court observing that power in respect of remedial action has to be exercised within the prescribed time. To the similar effect is the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of A.S. Chennaswamy Raju (HUF) vs. ACIT (Inv.) reported in 300 ITR 96 wherein application for rectification of the order passed on 6.4.98 u/s. 254(1) was filed by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case, we hold that the applications filed by the assessee beyond the period of four years from the date of the corresponding order passed u/s. 254(2) are barred the limitation and the same are liable to be dismissed in limine. We may also note here that as is evident from the sequence of events furnished by the assessee that the appeal being ITA No. 895/Mum/97 was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal in February, 1997 and despite its change of address immediately thereafter, a letter informing the new address was sent to the Registry of the Tribunal only in March, 2004 i.e. after a period of about 7 years. The non-service or delay in service of the order of the Tribunal passed ex parte on 3.3.2003 to the assessee thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
