Estate of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar, Amritsar. V. The Income Tax Officer, Tarn Taran

MA 06/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1104 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAM BHAL LD
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment; Right to appeal; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A NO.06(ASR)/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.306(ASR)/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:200 7-08 ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, THROUGH SH. JASBIR SINGH BHUULAR, E-250 RANJIT AVENUE, AMRITSA PAN:AFVPH 1546N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TARN TARAN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. PADAM BHAL (LD. CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 13.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.09.2018 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2015 PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AT AMRITSAR , IN ITA NO.306(ASR)/2014, WHEREBY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WA S DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CARE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE APPEAL VIDE ITA NO.306(ASR)/2014, ON F EELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR, WHICH CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 16 TH MARCH, 2015, ON WHICH DATE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH AT AMRITSAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL ON 08.05.2014 AND THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THE FOLLO WING DEFECT ' (I) APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 460 DAYS' IN THE PRESENT APPEAL M.A.NO.06/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2007-08) ESTATE OF SH . JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, AMRITSAR V. ITO 2 AND COMMUNICATED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE DEFECT MEMO DATED 08.05.2014, BUT THE ASSESSE HAS NOT RECTIFIED THE SA ME TILL DATE. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH FINALLY DISMISSED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE BEING DEFECTIVE, HOWEVER LIBERTY WAS G RANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALLING OF THE SAID ORDER AFTER RECTIFYING THE DEFECT RAISED BY THE REGIST RY FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE A SSESSEE SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE AFORESAID ORDER VIDE APPLICA TION DATED 13.12.2017 WHICH WAS REGISTERED BY THE REGISTRY ON 19.1 2.2017 WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CONTROVERSY HAS CROPPED U P QUA MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPLICATION ITSELF. 3. THE LD. DR AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT ACCORDING TO LIMITATION IMPOSED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, AMENDMENT CAM E INTO EFFECT FROM 1 ST JUNE, 2016 AND THE PERIOD OF FOR MAKING OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IN ORDER, HAS BEEN REDUCED F ROM FOUR YEARS TO SIX MONTHS, THEREFORE, AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF THE PROVISION STATED ABOVE, THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR RECT IFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS ONLY SIX MONTHS AS TH E AMENDMENTS STIPULATES : THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHIC H THE ORDER WAS PASSED , WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FRO M THE RECORD, AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECT ION (1), AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO IT S NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER: FURTHER IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. DR THAT IN T HE INSTANT CASE, THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION WAS FILED ON 19.12.20 17 WHICH IS UNDISPUTEDLY AFTER FIRST JUNE, 2016, HENCE, THE LIMIT ATION OF SIX MONTHS SHALL APPLY, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED A ND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AT THE LIMINE STAGE ITSELF. EVEN OTHERW ISE, THERE IS NO SUCH LAW APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE, WHERE THE LIMITATION M.A.NO.06/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2007-08) ESTATE OF SH . JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, AMRITSAR V. ITO 3 CAN BE EXTENDED FURTHER EITHER ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PARTIES OR SUO MOTO BY THE COURT. THE LD. DR ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDER DATED 31-03-20 17, PASSED BY THE ITAT, A BENCH AT BANGALORE IN THE CASE O F MS. SHAMSUNISSA BEGUM V. DCIT, [M.P. NO.8 TO 11(BAN)/2017 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AT BANGALORE DEA LT WITH THE IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR ISSUE AND WHILE RELYING UPO N THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. V. ITAT AND ORS. 359 ITR 371 DISMISSED THE SIMILAR PETITION, THEREFORE, THE INSTANT A PPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LIMITATION. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR SH. PADAM BAHL VEHEME NTLY ARGUED THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 16.03.2015 AND UP TO THAT THE LIMITATION FOR FILING AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICA TION OF THE DEFECT IN THE ORDER WAS FOUR YEARS AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING APPLICATION/APPEAL OR ANY OTHER PETITION IS SUBSTANTIA TIVE RIGHT AND THAT CANNOT BE CURTAILED BY MAKING ANY AMENDMENT UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE MUST BE SPECIFICATION THAT AMENDMENT SHA LL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY, BUT NOT OTHERWISE. IN THE INST ANT CASE, THE LIMITATION OF 04 YEARS IS APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE, TH E APPLICATION IS MAINTAINABLE. THE LD AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS (1) BHILAI ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. VS. DCIT, [200 2] 81 ITD 0282 (2) LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES GRL LLC VS. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) [2017] 51 CCH 0224 (MUM TRIB.) M.A.NO.06/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2007-08) ESTATE OF SH . JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, AMRITSAR V. ITO 4 (3) DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., RAISEN VS. UNION OF INDIA [WRIT PETITION NO.4144/2017] (MP HIGH COURT) (4) GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD. VS. ADI-1(1), KOLKATA [M.A. NO.39/KOL/2017] (ITAT, KOL.) (5) CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. [1973] 88 ITR 0192 (SC) 5. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. LEGAL ISSUE RAISED IN THE INSTANT CASE , RELATES TO MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATION ITSELF AS TO WHETHER LIMITATION PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED PRIOR AMENDMENT OF FINANCE ACT 201 6 OR POST AMENDMENT SHALL BE APPLICABLE. LET US TO PERUSE T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT A BENCH AT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF MS. SHAMSUNISSA BEGUM V. DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREBY IT WAS HELD BY THE COURT: WE HAVE NO DOUBT IN OUR MIND THAT THERE IS APPAREN T MISTAKE IN THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2016 AS THE TRIBUN AL HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESEE ON MERIT BUT DISMISSED THE SAME IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTIO N. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE C ANNOT BE ENTERTAINED UNTIL AND UNLESS, THE MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE MAINTAINABLE. THE MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BEYOND THE PERIO D OF SIX MONTHS FROM 01.06. 2016 AND THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISI ON TO CONDONE THE DELAY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, IT MAY BE A CASE OF OMISSION IN THE PROVISION OF ACT WHICH CANN OT BE SUPPLIED BY US WHEN THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.254(2) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORAT ION LTD. V. ITAT AND ORS. 359 ITR 371, DEALT WITH AN ID ENTICAL ISSUE AND HAS HELD IN PARA NO.16 TO 18. .. M.A.NO.06/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2007-08) ESTATE OF SH . JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, AMRITSAR V. ITO 5 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. V. ITAT AND OTHERS (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BEYOND THE PERIO D OF LIMITATION AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 254(2) AND AR E NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED B EING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 6. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO REPRODU CE THE RELEVANT PROVISION PRIOR AND POST AMENDMENT OF SECTION 254(2) BY FINANCE ACT 2016. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT OF 1961 PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT READS AS UNDER:- 254(2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER , WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RE CORD, 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 ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER : PROVIDED THAT AN AMENDMENT WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF ENHANCING AN ASSESSMENT OR REDUCING A REFUND OR OTHERWISE INCREASING THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, SHALL NOT BE MADE UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION UNLESS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE OF ITS IN TENTION TO DO SO AND HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD [PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ANY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS SUB-SECTION ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998, SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A FEE OF FIF TY RUPEES.] SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT OF 1961 AFTER AMENDMENT 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 ORD ER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), AND SHALL MAKE SUCH M.A.NO.06/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2007-08) ESTATE OF SH . JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, AMRITSAR V. ITO 6 AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE B Y THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER: PROVIDED THAT AN AMENDMENT WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF ENHANCING AN ASSESSMENT OR REDUCING A REFUND OR OTHERWISE INCREASING THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, SHALL NOT BE MADE UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION UNLESS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE OF ITS IN TENTION TO DO SO AND HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD [PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ANY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS SUB-SECTION ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998, SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A FEE OF FIF TY RUPEES.] FROM THE PROVISIONS, IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT PRIOR TO 1 ST JUNE, 2016 THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) WAS 04 YEARS , HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS SUBSTITUT ED TO 06 MONTHS BY AMENDMENT VIDE FINANCE ACT 2016, WHICH CAM E INTO EFFECT FROM 1 ST JUNE, 2016. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO DOUBT, THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 16 TH MARCH, 2015 AND THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION WAS FILED ONLY ON 19 TH DEC., 2017 THAT WAS MUCH LATER THAN THE 1 ST JUNE, 2016, THEREFORE, THE CONTROVERSY HAS CROPPED UP AS TO WHETHER THE LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIB ED POST AMENDMENT SHALL APPLY TO THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION OR NOT. 7. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K. RAVENDRA NATHAN NAIR V. CIT, IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3131 OF 2006 CLEARLY HELD THAT ' RIGHT TO APPEAL BEING A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT GETS CRYSTALLIZED AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ORIGINAL ORDER UNLESS THE SAME IS TAKEN AWAY BY RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT ' . ACCORDING TO THE DICTUM OF THE APEX COURT, RIGHT TO A PPEAL IS VESTED IN THE LITIGANT AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE LI S AND THEREFORE, SUCH VESTED RIGHT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY AND CA NNOT BE M.A.NO.06/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2007-08) ESTATE OF SH . JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, AMRITSAR V. ITO 7 IMPAIRED OR MADE MORE STRINGENT BY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATI ON UNLESS THE SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION SAID SO EITHER EXPRESSLY O R BY NECESSARY INTENDMENT. AN INTENTION TO INTERFERE OR IMP AIR A VESTED RIGHT CANNOT BE PRESUMED UNLESS SUCH INTENTION BE CL EARLY MANIFESTED BY THE EXPRESSED WORDS OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICAT ION. 8. FURTHER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH I N THE CASE OF DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RAISEN, V. U NION OF INDIA [WRIT PETITION NO.4144/2017, DECIDED ON 9 TH OCTOBER, 2017] DEALT WITH THE IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR ISSUE AND WH ILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CA SE OF M.P. STEEL CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCI SE, {REPORTED IN [2015] 07 SCC 58} , DECIDED THE ISSUE THA T THE NEW LAW OF LIMITATION PROVIDING A SHORTER PERIOD CANNOT CE RTAINLY EXTINGUISH A VESTED RIGHT OF ACTION. 9. THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH AT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD. V. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNA TIONAL TAXATION) IN MA NO.39(KOL)/ 2017 , VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 2 ND FEB. 2018 AND THE ITAT BENCH AT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF LUCEN T TECHNOLOGIES GRL LLC V. ADDL. DIRECTION OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), IN MA NO. 411/MUM/2016 TO 414/MUM/ 2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7001/MUM/2010 DECIDED ON 9 TH OCT., 2017 ) ALSO DEALT WITH SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL ISSUE AND WHILE RELYING UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND HIGH COURTS DECIDED THAT THE APPLICATION CAN BE FILED WI THIN FOUR YEARS, IF THE ORDER WHICH SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED HAS BE EN PASSED BEFORE THE 1 ST JUNE, 2016. 10. WHILE COMING TO THE CASE OF MS. SHAMSUNISSA BEGUM V. DCIT (SUPRA) AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONCE IT IS CLEARLY HELD BY THE APE X COURT M.A.NO.06/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2007-08) ESTATE OF SH . JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, AMRITSAR V. ITO 8 THAT THE RIGHT TO APPEAL BEING A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT GE TS CRYSTALLIZED AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ORIGINAL ORD ER UNTIL OR UNLESS THE SAME IS TAKEN AWAY BY RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT BY CLEAR MANIFESTATION, EITHER BY EXPRESS WORD OR BY NECE SSARY IMPLICATION, THE RIGHT TO APPEAL BEING A SUBSTANTIVE R IGHT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY. EVEN APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. [1973] 88 ITR 0192, CLEARLY HELD THAT ' IF TWO REASONABLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TAXING PROVISION ARE POSSIBLE THAT CONSTRUCTION WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ADOPTED. THIS IS A WELL ACCEPTED RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT IN SEVERAL OF ITS DECISIONS. FURTHER IT WAS HELD BY APEX COURT ' IF WE FIND THAT LANGUAGE TO BE AMBIGUOUS OR CAPABLE OF MORE MEANINGS THAN ONE, THE N WE HAVE TO ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE' . IN VIEW OF THE DICTUM OF APEX COURT, WE HAVE TO SEE WHETHER INTERPRETATION CAN BE P OSSIBLE OF SEC. 254(2), AS WE REALIZED THAT THERE IS AN OMISSION IN THE SECTION WITH REGARD TO THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDERS P ASSED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 1 ST JUNE, 2016 BY FINANCE ACT 2016. EVEN WE OBSERVE THAT IN THE AMENDMEN T, IT IS NOT CLARIFIED THAT THE AMENDMENT SHALL BE MADE APPLI CABLE RETROSPECTIVELY OR PROSPECTIVELY, HOWEVER, IT CAN BE CONST RUED THAT THE ORDER PASSED AFTER 1 ST JUNE, 2016 CAN BE RECTIFIED AT ANY TIME WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN W HICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. FROM THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT, THE HIGH COURT AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHE S, IT TRITE TO SAY THAT POST AMENDMENT PROVISION SHALL ONLY BE APP LICABLE TO THE ORDER PASSED ON OR AFTER 1 ST JUNE, 2016 ONWARDS, BUT NOT OTHERWISE. AN ORDER PASSED PRIOR TO THE 1 ST JUNE, 2016 CAN BE SUBJECTED TO CHALLENGE FOR RECTIFICATION UP TO 4 YEARS FR OM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. M.A.NO.06/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2007-08) ESTATE OF SH . JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, AMRITSAR V. ITO 9 WHILE COMING TO THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT TH AT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 16 TH MARCH, 2015, WHICH WAS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF AMENDMENT AND THE APPLICATION FOR RECT IFICATION WAS FILED ON 19 TH DECEMBER, 2017, WHICH UNDISPUTEDLY IS WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. HENCE, WE DO NOT HAV E ANY HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE SAME IS WITHIN THE LIMITAT ION PERIOD AND THUS, MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 5. NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF APPLICATION, THE LIB ERTY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSEEEE TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALLING OF THE SAID ORDER AFTER RECTIFYING THE DEFECT RAISED BY THE REGISTRY FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THE DEFECT RAI SED BY THE REGISTRY WITHIN 01 MONTH OF THIS ORDER WHICH WILL BE WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS, AS HELD BY US. WE CLARIFY THAT THIS ORDER SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO THE RECTIFICATION OF DEF ECT BY THE ASSEEEE WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO LIST THE APP EAL FOR HEARING, AFTER RECTIFICATION OF DEFECT BY ASSESSEE, BY ISSUI NG NOTICE TO THE PARTIES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.09.2018 . SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER DATED:07.09.2018 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, THROUGH S H. JASBIR SINGH BHUULAR, E-250 RANJIT AVENUE, AMRITSA (2) THE ITO, WARD 1(3), TARN TARAN (3) THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR M.A.NO.06/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2007-08) ESTATE OF SH . JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, AMRITSAR V. ITO 10 (4) THE CIT, CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER