Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ms. Shamsunissa Begum Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11 (1) Bengaluru

Rectification of mistake - condonation of delay in filing application / petition - Held that:- We have no doubt in our mind that there is an apparent mistake in the order dated 07.04.2016 as the Tribunal has not decided the appeals of the assessee on merit but dismissed the same inlimini 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 p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

., Vs. ITAT and others (2013 (10)1085 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) we hold that the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee are beyond the period of limitation as provided under section 254(2) and are not maintainable - MP No. 8 to 11/B/2017, And ITA No.1223 to 1226/B/2014 - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri. H. R. Suresh, CA For The Respondent : Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member By w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hearing and deciding the appeals on merits. It has been explained that the assessee is a 73 year old lady and does not have access to internet and other modes of communications to seek information such as date of hearing etc., and since the assessee did not receive notice of hearing of the appeal on 07.04.2016, therefore, the assessee could not communicate the date to the representative to appear before this Tribunal. The learned AR has thus pleaded that the reasons for not appearing are beyond .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bunal can be rectified within the period of 6 months and since the assessee has filed these miscellaneous applications after the expiry of 6 months of limitation period, therefore the miscellaneous applications are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant record. The assessee has filed these miscellaneous petitions on 13.01.2017 for recalling of order of the Tribunal dated 07.04.2016. The provision of re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the 52[Assessing] Officer: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: 53[Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er was passed. In the case in hand, the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 07.04.2016 and after the amendment in section 254(4) w.e.f. 01.06.2016, these miscellaneous petitions were required to be filed before 31.12.2016. Prior to the amendment, the limitation was provided as 4 years for rectification of mistake apparent from record and therefore there was no provision in the Income Tax Act for condonation of any delay of any petition for rectification of mistake filed after the said p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

self, therefore the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable so far as the limitation provided in the Income Tax Act. This principle is well settled that when there is a provision in special statute, then the general statute is not applicable to the extent of the provision provided in the special statute. We find that prior to the amendment the limitation for rectification of mistake was 4 years as provided under section 254(2) and therefore there was no question of providing any provisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at hardship and deprivation of valuable right of pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. But in the absence of any provision giving power or jurisdiction to this Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the petition for rectification of the mistake apparent from the record, the Tribunal has no option but to proceed strictly as per the provisions as provided in the statute. 5. We have no doubt in our mind that there is an apparent mistake in the order dated 07.04.2016 as the Tribunal has not deci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., vs. ITAT and others 359 ITR 371, while dealing with an identical issue has held in paras 16 to 18 as under: 16 It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that the power of the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act is only to rectify an error apparent from th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the miscellaneous application is to correct the error apparent from the record. The consequence of such rectification application being allowed may lead to a fresh hearing in the matter after having recalled the original order. However, the recall, if any, is only as a consequence of rectifying the original order. It is pertinent to note that section 254(2) of the Act does not prohibit the recall of an order. In fact the power/jurisdiction of the Tribunal to recall an order on rectification appl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Tribunal dismissed the appeal of stock exchange holding that it was not entitled to exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act. On November 13, 2000, the stock exchange filed a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated September 5, 2001, allowed the application and held that there was a mistake apparent on the record which required rectification. Accordingly, the Tribunal recalled its order dated October 27, 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ions of the jurisdictional High Court. This mistake was corrected by the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the rectification of an order stands on the fundamental principle that justice is above all and upheld the exercise of power under section 254(2) of the Act by the Tribunal in recalling its earlier order dated October 27, 2000. Thus, recall of an order is not barred on rectification application being made by one of the parties. In these circumstances, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation for rectification would he under section 254(2) of the Act. The recall of an order would well be a consequence of rectifying an order under section 254(2) of the Act. In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal holding that the miscellaneous application filed by the appellant is barred by limitation under section 254(2) of the Act as i was filed beyond a period of four years from the order sought to be rectified. 18 Before concluding, we would like .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Radcliffe said: 'An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable at legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead.. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders.' This must be equally true even where the 'brand of invalidity' is plainly visible : for there also the orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version