TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Period of limitation would begin to run from the date the assessee got knowledge of the order or from the date of passing of the order - provisions of Section 254(2) of the said Act, it is seen that Tribunal could at any time within four years from the date of its order rectify any mistake that was apparent from the record. As per the statutory position prevalent when the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in default on 01.02.2013 the period prescribed for exercise of such jurisdiction was four years. The period of four years stipulated in Section 254 (2) was substituted by the period of six months by virtue of the Finance Act, 2016 that came into force on 01.06.2016. The statutory position as prevalent on 01.02.2013 thus indicates that within a period of four years from the end of the month in which the order was passed, the Tribunal under Section 254 (2) of the said Act was empowered to rectify its mistake. In the present case, the applicant got knowledge of the order dated 01.02.2013 on 30.12.2019 and thereafter the applicant moved the Tribunal -Tribunal thereafter considered the applications on merits. It is thus found that the period from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ). Similar orders were passed for assessment years 2003- 04 and 2004-05. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeals as filed came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by filing further appeals. On 01.02.2013 the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals on the ground that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee which indicated that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals. It further observed that if the assessee filed a miscellaneous application explaining the reason for non-appearance, such application would be duly considered. After dismissal of the appeals, the Tax Recovery Officer issued a notice on 19.11.2019 seeking to attach the immovable properties of the assessee. After receiving that notice, the assessee on 30.12.2019 filed separate miscellaneous applications before the Tribunal seeking restoration of each appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay. During pendency of those proceedings, the Direct Tax V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax (2014) 364 ITR 0016 (Guj) and Smt. Ritha Sabapathy vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2019) 416 ITR 0191(Madras) in that regard. He then relied on the decision in Golden Times Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2020) 422 ITR 0102 (Delhi) to urge that the limitation for seeking restoration of the proceedings would commence from the date of knowledge of the order in question and not from the date on which the order was passed. He thus submitted that though the appeals were filed after about 3062 days since 01.02.2013 on which date the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in default, the delay ought to be calculated only from 19.11.2019 when the assessee got knowledge of the said order of the Tribunal. He therefore submitted that the delay in filing the appeals deserves to be condoned. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the Revenue opposed the aforesaid contentions. According to the learned counsel, since the assessee was duly represented before the Tribunal when the appeals were dismissed in default on 01.02.2013 the time began to run from that date. The aspect of getting knowledge of the aforesaid order was not relevant in as much as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal dismissing the appeals for want of prosecution. Two contentions raised by the assessee that require consideration are that firstly, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeals for absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee and such dismissal in limine was without jurisdiction. Secondly, the period of limitation would begin to run from the date the assessee got knowledge of the order and not from the date of passing of the order. We are required to examine if these contentions constitute good cause for condoning the delay. Rule 24 of the Rules of 1963 which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee in support of his first contention reads thus : Where on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Appellant does not appear in person or through an authorized representative, when the Appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent; Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears after words, and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s seen that Tribunal could at any time within four years from the date of its order rectify any mistake that was apparent from the record. As per the statutory position prevalent when the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in default on 01.02.2013 the period prescribed for exercise of such jurisdiction was four years. The period of four years stipulated in Section 254 (2) was substituted by the period of six months by virtue of the Finance Act, 2016 that came into force on 01.06.2016. The statutory position as prevalent on 01.02.2013 thus indicates that within a period of four years from the end of the month in which the order was passed, the Tribunal under Section 254 (2) of the said Act was empowered to rectify its mistake. In Golden Times Services (P) Limited (supra), the Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 254(2) would commence from the date the affected party got knowledge of the decision in question and it would not commence from the date the order was passed. In the present case, the applicant got knowledge of the order dated 01.02.2013 on 30.12.2019 and thereafter the applicant moved the Tribunal as can be seen from the orders passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
