9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awant,. For the Respondent-Income Tax: Mr Akshileshwar Sharma,. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M S SONAK, J. ) :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 03 November 2023 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khileshwar Sharma, the learned counsel for the Respondents, submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order of 10 January 2022 did not apply in the present case because, according to the Petitioner, the limitation period expired on 31 May 2022 and not within the period 15 March 2020 and 28 February 2022. Therefore, he submitted that such a plea was correctly not even raised before the Tribunal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254 (2) expires on 31 May 2022. This Section provides that such an application for rectification must be filed within six months from the end of the month the order was passed. 10. The Miscellaneous Application invoking Section 254 (2) was filed only on 26 August 2022, after an approximate three month delay. The ITAT, in the impugned order dated 03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicial proceedings. Paragraph 5 (II) clarifies that, consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03 October 2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01 March 2022. 13. In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the above direction. This is because, even according to the Petitioner, the limitation period expired on 31 May 2022, i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra). 16. Given the above position, sufficient cause, if any, would be irrelevant. The ITAT has also not gone into the issue of sufficient cause but by relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court Re. Karuturi Global Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2020 116 Taxmann.com 924 (Kar) held that it has no power to condone the delay in entertaining an application under Section 254 (2) of the IT Act. 17. Since the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
