TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the Act. Since it is not necessary to interpret Section 254(2) differently to avoid hardship or absurdity or uncertainty, the judgment in D. Saibaba case has no applicability to the present case. The controversy with regard to whether pronouncement of a judgment in open court amounts to communication of the order is much ado about nothing since the order complained o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 254(2) of the Act beyond a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order sought to be rectified was passed. 4. It was further held by the Tribunal that since the order was pronounced on September 09, 2018, in open court, it was to be presumed that the assessee had the knowledge of the order on the date of pronouncement of the order. 5. The assessee impugnes the said order of the Tribunal suggesting that the date of order is not relevant for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and it should be the date on which the order was served upon the assessee by the Tribunal. The assessee by placing heavy reliance upon the judgment reported at (2003) 6 SCC 186 (D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the judgment in D. Saibaba (Supra) was applied by Gujrat High Court in a case reported at (2014) 364 ITR 16 (Guj) (Peterplast Synthetics P. Ltd. -Versus- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) to the provision of 254 (2) of the said Act. It was held in the said judgment that the limitation period for an application for rectification of the order under Section 254(2) should be counted from the date of actual receipt of the order but not from the date of order. 9. According to the assessee, since the order of the Tribunal was served upon the assessee only on December 05, 2018, the application for rectification was within the time and the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the said application on the ground of limitation. 10. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal or an application under this Act, the day on which the order complained of was served and, if the assessee was not furnished with a copy of the order when the notice of the order was served upon him, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of such order, shall be excluded. 14. The said section has replaced Section 67-A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The said section provided as follows:- Section 67A. Computation of periods of limitation. - In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal under this Act or for an application under section 66, the day on which the order complained of was made, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of such order, shall be excluded. 15. A comparison of the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is absolutely uncalled for when the application has been served upon an assessee in terms of Section 254(3) of the Act. 19. Since it is not necessary to interpret Section 254(2) differently to avoid hardship or absurdity or uncertainty, the judgment in D. Saibaba case has no applicability to the present case. 20. The controversy with regard to whether pronouncement of a judgment in open court amounts to communication of the order is much ado about nothing since the order complained of in this case was served upon the assessee in terms of Section 254(3) of the Act. 21. We are not inclined to agree with the reasoning of Peterplast Synthetics P. Ltd. (Supra) since the same was passed without considering Section 268 of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
