TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier Misc. Application is already decided with the detailed order regarding the issue of limitation which we cannot review in the present Misc. Application. The preposition of the Ld. AR amounts to review of its own order dated 07.02.2018 by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law, the remedy in our opinion lies elsewhere, but not before the Tribunal at this juncture. Hence, the present Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. - MA NO. 118/Del/2018 In I.T.A. No. 3844/DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2020 - SH. R. K. PANDA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER Applicant by : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv Respondent by : Sh. Shailesh Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by ITAT vide order dated 07/02/18 whereby the MA of appellant / assessee was dismissed and the appeal of assessee was restored for adjudication findings on merits. The ITAT vide its said order dated 07/02/18 held that MA filed by assessee is beyond the period of limitation. The ITAT in its decision relied upon the provisions of Finance Act, 2016 which with effect from 01/06/2016 provide a reduced period of 6 months for rectifying a mistake u/s 254(2); 1.3 Against the order of ITAT in MA No. 174/Del/17 assessee has filed the captioned MA registered as MA No. 118/Del/18. 2. Assessee s submissions: It is respectfully submitted that the following ostensible mistakes apparent from record require due rectification whereby the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) filed after amendment in section 254(2) inserted by Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01/06/16 will continue to be governed by law of limitation laid down on the date when order against which application is sought to be filed was passed and not as per law applicable w.e.f. 01/10/16. To similar effect it has been held in the decision of MP High Court in the case of District Central Co-operative Banck vs. Union of India 398 ITR 161 (MP). Copy of this decision is enclosed in the accompanying paper book. Operative portion from the said decision vide paras 10 11 are quoted hereunder for ready reference: 10. The Hon ble M.P. High Court in Writ Petition No. 4144/2017 in the case of District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Union of India (2017) 86 tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the legislature should have granted some time to the assessees who could have filed an appeal within a period of four years and the same has not been done till the amendment came into force extinguishable the right to file an appeal. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, application preferred by the assessee should not have been dismissed by the Tribunal on account of the amendment which has reduced the period of limitation of four years to six months. 12-Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the respondent on 23/12/2016 is hereby quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the application preferred under Section 254(2) on merits within a period of three months from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. DR hand strongly objected to the M.A. filed by the assessee against the dismissal of the M.A. No. 174/Del/2017. The Ld. DR submitted that there cannot be any Misc. Application against the order of the Misc. Application. The Ld. DR submitted that the MA filed by the assessee is against the statute and thereafter the same may be dismissed. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that as per sub-section (1) of Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, any order passed by the Tribunal can be rectified if there is mistake apparent on record. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 07.02.2018 has given a finding that the said Misc. Application No. 174/Del/2017 was filed after six months period as per the amendment brought into the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame in our opinion is not maintainable as the statute does not provide the assessee to file an Misc. Application against the order of the Misc. Application. Section 254(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under: 254. Orders of Appellate Tribunal (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under subsection (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
