The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda V. Asence Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Baroda

MA 108/AHD/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6979 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L P JAIN
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 3 , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE, SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A NO.108/AHD/2020 IN ./ ITA NO.1000/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA. VS. ASENCE PHARMA PVT. LTD, SARABHAI CAMPUS, DR. VIKRAM SARABHAI MARG, WADI, BARODA-390023. PAN: AAFCA3471M (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI L.P. JAIN, SR.D.R ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VARTIK CHOKSHI, WITH SHRI BIREN SHAH, A.RS / DATE OF HEARING : 16/07/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/08/2021 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE REVENUE BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS SEEKING TO RECALL THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2019 PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, IN ITA NO. 1000/AHD/2015 FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-2011 ON THE REASONING THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THEREFORE, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE RECALLED WITHIN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. M.A NO.108/AHD/2020 IN ITA NO.1000/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 99 DAYS IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SECTION READS AS UNDER: ORDERS OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 74 254. (1)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (1A) 75 [***] (2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN 76 [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 77 , AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), AND 77 SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT 77 IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE 78 [ASSESSING] OFFICER : 3. THE TERM FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PAWAN KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT REPORTED IN 32 TAXMANN.COM 378 AS FROM THE DATE WHEN THE ORDER IS RECEIVED OR COMMUNICATED TO EITHER PARTY . THE RELEVANT EXTRACT READS AS UNDER: THUS, LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE DATE OF ORDER, AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 254(2) SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THE DATE WHEN THE ORDER IS RECEIVED OR COMMUNICATED TO EITHER PARTY. 4. THUS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR FILING THE MA SHALL BE CALCULATED IN THE PRESENT CASE FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND NOT FROM THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. TO BE PRECISE, THE ORDER, BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS PASSED/ PRONOUNCED IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2019 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 13-06-2019 AS EVIDENT FROM THE CONDONATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. THUS, EVEN THE TIME LIMITED FOR FILING THE MA IS RECKONED FROM THE MONTH OF JUNE 2019, IT EXPIRES ON 31-12-2019 WHEREAS THE PRESENT MA HAS BEEN FILED DATED 18-3-2020 WHICH IS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO POWER GRANTED TO THE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE PROVISION OF LAW FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, IF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION IS FILED LATE BY THE AGGRIEVED PARTY UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT THE APPLICATION FILED BY M.A NO.108/AHD/2020 IN ITA NO.1000/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 3 THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. HENCE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 04/08/2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (WASEEM AHMED) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (TRUE COPY) AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/08/2021 MANISH