"MP No.8/Bang/2025 Ashok Shetty, Udupi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP No.8/Bang/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.1562/Bang/2014 Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT Circle-1 Udupi Vs. Shri Ashok Shetty Prop: M/s. Ashok Impex Raj Towers, Opp: City Bus Stand Udupi 576 101 Karnataka PAN NO : ADBPM5671P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Balusamy N., D.R. Date of Hearing : 06.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This miscellaneous petition u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) is filed by the revenue on 18.2.2025 seeking rectification of the order of Tribunal dated 14.08.2015 in ITA Nos.1436 & 1562 (B)/2014 for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 on the following lines: MP No.8/Bang/2025 Ashok Shetty, Udupi Page 2 of 5 MP No.8/Bang/2025 Ashok Shetty, Udupi Page 3 of 5 MP No.8/Bang/2025 Ashok Shetty, Udupi Page 4 of 5 2. On going through the above miscellaneous petition, we observe that this MA filed by the revenue on 18.2.2025 seeking rectification of the order passed by ITAT ‘B’ Bench Bengaluru in ITA No.1436 & 1562/Bang/2014 dated 14.8.2015. Further, ongoing through the order sheet, we take a note of the fact that the registry has noted that this MP is time barred by 3277 days. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the MA filed by the revenue is beyond the period prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Act. Since the MA is filed belatedly beyond 6 months from the end of the month in which order was passed and hence the Tribunal has no power u/s 254(2) of the Act to condone the delay. In holding so, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements: • A.S.Chinnaswamy Raju (HUF) Vs. ACIT reported (2018) 300 ITR 96 (Karn.) • Arvindbhai H. Shah V. ACIT (2004) 91 ITD 101 (Ahd.) (SB) • Ms. Shamsunissa Begum V. DCIT (2017) 83 taxmann.com 96 (Bangalore Trib.) • Rahu Jee & Co. (P) Ltd. V. ACIT (2009) 120 ITD 481 (Delhi) MP No.8/Bang/2025 Ashok Shetty, Udupi Page 5 of 5 • ACIT Vs. Smt. Preetha S. Nair (2010) 193 Taxman 28 (Cochin) (MAG). 2.1 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decisions cited above, we hold that the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s 254(2) of the Act and is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed being barred by limitation. 3. In the result, the miscellaneous petition filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th Jun, 2025 Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 9th Jun, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "