TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the date of passing of the order. Since as on both the dates i.e. date of dispatch as well as dated of receipt , the application of the assessee would be deemed to be filed within the l imitation period, hence, we leave the quest ion of law open as to whether the date of dispatch of order or the date of receipt of copy of the order by the concerned party is to be taken as date of commencement of limitation period. Though the operative part of the order may be in the knowledge of the assessee, however, whether there is any mistake apparent on record in the contents of the order , it can be not iced only after going through the contents of the order. The order in this case admittedly was dispatched on 29.6.2017, even if that is taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent By : Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr .DR ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present Misc. Applications have been filed by the applicant assessee for recalling the order of the Tribunal dated 24.5.2017 in ITA 101/Chd/2017 and dated 19.5.2017 in ITA No. 858/Chd/2016. 2. The Registry has put a note that the applications are time barred by five days. However, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the settled legal position of law, the applications cannot be treated as time bar red. He in this respect has invited our attention to the relevant provisions of sect ion 254(2) of the Income-tax Act , 1961 ( in short 'the Act '), which read as under :- 254. (2) The Appellate Tribunal m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ean and must be construed as meaning the date of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive, of the order sought to be reviewed . The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court , therefore, held that since the rectification application had been submitted within the period of four years (limitation period as prescribed before amendment ) from the date of actual receipt of the judgment and order and, therefore, the same was within the period of limitation as per sect ion 254(2) of the I. Tax Act . The Ld. Counsel has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Liladhar T Khushlani Vs. Commissioner of Customs in Tax Appeal No. 915 of 2016 vide order dated 25.01.2017 wherein the Hon'ble High Court wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the issue relating to the date of commencement of the limitation for f i ling the rectification application is concerned, the position is settled by the vaious Courts of law including that of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Peaterplast Synthetics (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (supra) and Liladhar T Khushlani Vs. Commissioner of Customs (supra), holding that the relevant date has to be taken as the date of dispatch / receipt of the copy of the order and not the date of passing of the order . Since as on both the dates i.e. date of dispatch as well as dated of receipt , the application of the assessee would be deemed to be filed within the l imitation period, hence, we leave the quest ion of law open as to whether the date of dispatch of order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for recalling necessary amendment in the orders of the Tribunal passed in above captioned appeals which was dismissed by the Tribunal in turn relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of the ITAT in the case of Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO in 798/Chd/2012. 9. The learned AR for the assessee has submit ted that the issue involved in the appeals relate to deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act to the extent of 100% on account of substantial expansion carried out by the assessee. That the said decision is now covered by the subsequent decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Himachal Pradesh in M/s Stove kraft India Vs. CIT in ITA No. 20/2015 dated 28.11.2017, wherein, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hycron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
