9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised a preliminary issue by submitting that the order was passed by Tribunal on 08/11/2017 whereas this application has been filed on 01/06/2018 i.e. beyond six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed and therefore, application stood barred by limitation in terms of Section 254(2) since the period of limitation was to be reckoned from the end of the month in which the order was passed . Per Contra, Ld. DR drew attention to Authorization Memo dated 24/05/2018 to submit that the copy of the Tribunal's order was received only on 23/01/2018 and therefore, considering this date, the application was within the stipulated time limit. Our attention has been drawn to the following orders of the Tribunal in this regard: - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal is communicated to the respective parties, the further course of action against the same would remain in dormant stage and the parties would not be able to exercise their rights unless served with the order against which this right arises. The delay in communicating the order, in our opinion, could neither deprive the effected parties of their vested right to contest the same in further appeal or file rectification against the same nor could it operate so as to curtail the effective time available to do so. 2.3 Upon perusal of the judicial pronouncements as cited before us. we find that the Chandigarh Tribunal in Shri Jagomohan Gurbakshish Singh [supra] considering the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Peterplast Synt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the website is not one of the prescribed modes of communication to the parties. Therefore, unless the order is communicated in the prescribed manner, the parties would not come to know the contents of the order and could not chalk out further course of action against the same. Therefore, mere uploading of the order in the website, in our considered opinion, would not trigger the start of limitation period against the respective parties. 2.6 Applying the aforesaid principles to the factual matrix, we find that as counted from the date of receipt of the order i.e. 23/01/2018, the application is within time and therefore, we proceed to dispose-off the same as argued before us. 3. The first error pointed out by the revenue is that the conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AYs 2007-08 & 2008-09. The Ld. DR submitted that, however, the issue in AY 2007-08 was only with respect to applicability of provisions of Section 36(1)(viii) to the assessee whereas the issue in this year was regarding the allocation of expenses to eligible business. Therefore, the issue has not been considered in proper perspective and the decision is not acceptable. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid facts were already noted by the co-ordinate bench in para 6 and the matter was adjudicated after considering the same. 4.2 Upon perusal of para 6, we find that it is true that these facts were already noted by the bench while adjudicating the issue. It is not the case of the revenue that cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
