9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing M.A No. 132/Kol/2019 in connection with I.T.A No. 1479/Kol/2017 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The assessee filed the said application praying rectification of the order of the Tribunal passed on September 09, 2018. Admittedly, the said order of the Tribunal was served on the assessee on December 05, 2018, and the assessee filed the said application on June 03, 2019. 3. Tribunal held that there was a delay of 66 days in filing the said application by the assessee. Tribunal declined to entertain the said application being barred by limitation holding that the Income Tax Tribunal is a creature of statute and the Tribunal did not have any power to pass an order under Section 254(2) of the Act beyond a period of six months from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able and sensible result and, therefore, the starting point of limitation should be interpreted as the date of communication of the order, not from the date of the order as provided in Section 254(2) of the Act. 7. The assessee submits that the pronouncement of the order in the open court is not communication of the order and by itself cannot be the starting point for determining the period of limitation. The order has to be communicated to the parties affected by the said order so that the party adversely affected therefrom may know reasons and contents of the same and formulate grounds of attack before the appellate or higher forum. 8. The assessee points out that the judgment in D. Saibaba (Supra) was applied by Gujrat High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than what it said. 12. The revenue further supports the view of the Tribunal that since the order was pronounced of the open Court, it has to be presumed that the assessee had knowledge of the order from said date and therefore, there is nothing wrong in order of the Tribunal in computing the period of limitation from the date of order. 13. The answer to the controversy can easily be traced to Section 268 of the Act, which has been glossed over by the parties before us as well as by the Tribunal below. Section 268 of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: "Exclusion of time taken for copy. 268. In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal or an application under this Act, the day on which the order complained of was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded the time period between September 09, 2018, to December 05, 2018, in computing the period of limitation. The Tribunal was wrong in not applying the exclusion period in computing the period of limitation and rejecting the application being barred by limitation. 18. If Section 254(2) is read with Sections 254(3) and 268 of the Act and no hardship or unreasonableness can be found in the scheme of the Act. The Court need not make a violence to the words of Section 254(2) by substituting the word within "the end of the month in which the order was passed" by the word "the date on which the order was served". Such interpretation is absolutely uncalled for when the application has been served upon an assessee in terms of Section 254(3) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
