9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T.A.T. dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the instant appeal, is that an assessment order u/s 158 BC/158 BB of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated 31.3.2004 was passed by the D.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Ranchi for the Block Assessment Years i.e., 1996-97 to 2002-03 (up to 07.3.2002). Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the aforesaid assessment order in appeal, wherein the learned C.I.T. (Appeals), vide its order dated 07.3.2007, passed in Appeal No. 79/RN/B.P./S & S/04-05, deleted the entire addition. Being aggrieved by the appellate order, the revenue challenged the same before the learned I.T.A.T. and the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e miscellaneous application within time as per law i.e., within a period of four years from the date of communication. However, the learned I.T.A.T. decided the M.A. on the basis of amended law which was prevalent on the date of hearing. He contended that it is an admitted fact that as per the existing law the petitioner filed the miscellaneous application within time. Thus, the instant appeal be allowed and the matter may be remitted to the learned I.T.A.T. to reconsider the miscellaneous application on merit. 5. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue opposed the aforesaid prayer. However, in paragraph 9 of his written submission he has categorically admitted that the tribunal vide its order dated 23.12.2009 rever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Assessing Officer." The above section 254(2) of the Act was amended w.e.f. 01.06.2016 by Finance Act, 2016 and after its amendment the said section reads as under:- "254(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 sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assesse or the Assessing Officer:" * Substituted for "four years from the date of the order" by the Finance Act, 2016, w.e.f. 1-6-2016 8. Thus, the effect of such amendment is that prior to amendment of Section 254(2), the assessee could bring to the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act w.e.f. 01.06.2016, but the Tribunal, in the impugned order, for the purpose of dismissing the said miscellaneous application filed by the appellant has wrongly relied upon an order passed by Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Hita Land Private Ltd. & Ors, order dated 25.04.2017 (ITAT Mumbai) in Miscellaneous Application No. 103/Mum/2017. The fact of the said case of Hita Land Private Ltd. has been mentioned in the impugned order at running page 66, the perusal of which shows as under: (a) Tribunal passed the original order on 22.03.2013. (b) Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application on 28.02.2017. (c) The said MA was filed after amendment of section 254 (2) w.e.f. 01.06.2016. Whereas, in the instant case the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of High Court. The relevant paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 are quoted herein below. 11. By the impugned judgment the High Court came to the conclusion that under Section 254(2) the Tribunal could not have allowed rectification beyond four years. That, the Tribunal had no power to rectify the mistake after four years which time is set out in Section 254(2) itself for passing an order of rectification either suo motu or an application filed either by the assessee or by the assessing officer. The High Court did not go into the merits of the case. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal only on the ground of limitation. Hence, this civil appeal by special leave 12. In the light of the above controversy we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication. Therefore, in the circumstances, the High Court had erred in holding that the application could not have been entertained by the Tribunal beyond four years. 14. In this connection, our attention is also invited to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd. v. Union of India [(2002) 256 ITR 767 (Raj)] wherein an identical controversy arose for determination and the view taken by that Court was as follows : (ITR p. 767 C-F) "Once the assessee has moved the application within four years from the date of appeal, the Tribunal cannot reject that application on the ground that four years have lapsed, which includes the period of pendency of the application before the Tribunal. If the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
