TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2015 and the Tribunal was pleased to recall the order and date of hearing was given on 04.04.2018 to argue the case on merits. But the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was surprised to receive the said order dated 07.02.2018 wherein the assessee's recalling has been dismissed by the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed the affidavit of Sh. Vivek Agarwal, CA of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the observation made by the Tribunal in para 2.2 and 2.3 were not raised during the course of hearing on 02.02.2018. 2.1 The Ld. AR referring to written submissions filed by the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the same which explains the reasons for filing of this Misc. Application and which reads as under: "1. Background Facts: 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the respondent. This position is well settled clearly emanating from the provisions of aforesaid statutory rules and also supported from the following direct decisions on the subject: i) Decision of Full Bench of ITAT in the case of Partha Mitra vs. ITO 75 taxmann.com 118; ii) Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Golden Times Services P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 422 ITR 102 (Del.); iii) Decision of Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Ritha Sabapathy vs. DCIT 416 ITR 191 (Mad). 2.2 The amendment in section 254(2) w.e.f. 01/06/16 as relied upon the ITAT in its order dated 07/02/18 to dismiss the MA of assessee as being barred by limitation applies only to orders passed on and from the said dated and with respect to orders pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applied retrospectively, yet if a shorter period of limitation is provided by a later amendment to a statute, such period would render the vested right of action contained in the statute nugatory as such right of action would now become time barred under the amended provision. Therefore a statute which while procedural in its character, if it affects vested rights adversely it has to be construed as prospective. Following the aforesaid view, the Hon'ble M.P. High Court held as follows: "08. Keeping in view the judgment referred by their lordships in the aforesaid case and the judgment delivered by their lordships in the M.P. Steel Corporation (supra), in the present case also the new law of limitation providing a shorter period cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t which the MA is sought to be filed was passed and not law as per the law as amended by the amendment w.e.f. 1.6.2016. The MA therefore has to be construed as one filed within the period of limitation and has to be accepted as validly presented within the period of limitation". Thus, in view of the foregoing facts and submissions and legal positions it is respectfully submitted that the order of ITAT dismissing appeal of assessee ex parte and in limine be recalled for hearing and disposal on merits." 2.2 The Ld. AR referring to the above submitted that the same is self explanatory and therefore, the order of the Tribunal should be recalled. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the mistake which is apparent from record may be rectified and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion as time-barred. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed that the order dated 07.02.2018 be recalled and the appeal being ITA No. 3844/Del/2013 be restored for hearing on merit as the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The present Misc. Application is filed in respect of the order dated 07.02.2018 passed in Misc. Application No. 174/Del/2017 which was dismissed as time-barred after giving detailed reasoning thereafter. We are aware that the appeal was decided ex-parte due to non-appearance of the assessee and the Tribunal has also not decided the appeal on merit. When the assessee filed the MA, the Tribunal dismissed the same as barred by limitation.....