TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 254(2). Admittedly, the order of the Tribunal is dated 22nd March, 2017. The miscellaneous applications have been filed on 30.09.2019. The six month period in the present case expired on 30th September, 2017. Reading of the provisions of section 254(2) the time limit of six month is binding on the hands of the Tribunal. This is in line with the decision in the case of Principal CIT v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3. It was the submission by the learned DR that the issue in appeal was in respect of deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act. It was the submission that the Tribunal have originally dismissed the Revenue s appeal by following the decision of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of The Chirakkal Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, which has reversed the earlier decision, does constitute a mistake apparent from record and the miscellaneous applications were liable to be allowed. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. The Tribunal is a creature of the statute. It has not having the power to read in or read out of a provision of law. The Legislature in its wisdom has la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to its notice by the assessee or the [Assessing] Officer. 6. It shows that the time limit of six month is binding on the hands of the Tribunal. This is in line with the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. ITAT [Writ Petition No.2858 of 2019 dated 24.01.2020]. 7. This being so, as six month period from the end of the month in which the order has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
