TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -07-2016, therefore, the limitation for filing of Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) starts from 1st August, 2016 and the limitation ends on 31st January, 2017. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee/applicant on 08-05-2017. Therefore, this Miscellaneous Application has been filed with the delay of 97 days and hence, is barred by limitation. The Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing of Miscellaneous Application under provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. The Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raja Malwinder Singh Vs. Union of India Anr. [ 2005 (7) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to amend any order passed by it under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous Application the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order was received on 07-11-2016. The limitation of six months for filing Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) starts from the date of receipt of order. The six months period ended on 06-05-2017. 6th and 7th May, being closed holidays, the application was thus filed on 8th May, 2017. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Application is well within limitation period. The ld. Counsel to substantiate his submissions placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported as 398 ITR 161. 3. On the other hand Dr. Vivek Aggarwal representing the Department vehemently opposed the Miscellaneous App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee/applicant on 08-05-2017. Therefore, this Miscellaneous Application has been filed with the delay of 97 days and hence, is barred by limitation. The Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing of Miscellaneous Application under provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. 5. The Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raja Malwinder Singh Vs. Union of India Anr. reported as 278 ITR 568 has held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of section 254 after the expiry of prescribed time limit, whether it is on its own volition or on an application being made by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
