TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is required. We further find that the reliance by the Revenue on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Liladhar T. Khushlani Vs. Commissioner of Custom [ 2017 (2) TMI 200 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is misplaced. The said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was in context of unamended provisions of section 254(2) i.e. prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2016. Therefore, the said decision does not help the cause of Revenue. It is a trite law that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing of Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) of the Act. In the case of Raja Malwinder Singh Vs. Union of India Anr. [ 2005 (7) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and Rahul Jee Co. (P) Ltd. [ 2008 (5) TMI 306 - ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Liladhar T. Khushlani Vs. Commissioner of Custom in Tax Appeal No. 915 of 2016 decided on 25-01-2017 has held that the period of limitation for filing rectification application starts from the date of dispatch of the order and not from the date of actual passing the order. Similar view has been taken by Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jagmohan Gurbakshish Singh Vs. DCIT in MA No.42/Chd/2018 in ITA No. 102/Chd/2017 decided on 27-04-2018. 4. We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR. The Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the mistake in the order of Tribunal dated 31-08-2017 has been filed by the Department on 28-05-2018. Thus, the Miscellaneous Application for rectification of mistake has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification of mistake within a specified time of 6 months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. If the intention of the Legislature was to mark the period of limitation from the date of service of order then the sub-section (2) would have been worded in a manner to express that intent. This fact is explicitly evident from a perusal of sub- section (3) of section 253 wherein the limitation period of appeals to the appellate Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is mentioned. The provisions of section 253(2) clearly states the period of limitation starts from the date of communication of order against which appeal is to be filed. For the sake of ready reference Sub-section (3) of section 253 is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory from the provisions and the provisions of section can be interpreted literally no further interpretation is required. We further find that the reliance by the Revenue on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Liladhar T. Khushlani Vs. Commissioner of Custom (supra) is misplaced. The said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was in context of unamended provisions of section 254(2) i.e. prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2016. Therefore, the said decision does not help the cause of Revenue. 8. It is a trite law that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing of Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) of the Act. In this context it would be relevant to mention the decision of Hon'ble Punjab Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
