Sh. Bharat bhushan, Moga V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,circle moga, Ludhiana

MA 2/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4636 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 64

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. No. 02/Asr/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 577/Asr/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bharat Bhushan Prop. M/s Khubi Ram Johri Lal, Old Market, Moga [PAN: AASPB 0439L] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Moga (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 26.04.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The assessee preferred the miscellaneous application against the order passed by income tax appellate Tribunal, Amritsar bench, bearing IT number 577/ASR/20 one 64 assessment year 2012 – 13, the order pronounced on 31/01 /2018 which was received by assessee on dated 15/02/2018. The instant application was filed on 09/10/2018 before the bench. 2. The impugned application was filed in delay of three months as per provision of section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per provision of finance act 2016, the aforesaid section is amended as below:- MA No. 02/Asr/2019 Bharat Bhushan v. Asstt. CIT 2 “254. (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. (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 assessee or the [Assessing] Officer :” 3. The brief fact is that the assessee filed the petition to rectify the para of the said order and consideration of the judgments which was not taken by the bench in the said order. The power of bench under section 254 (2) of the act only to restrict to rectify the mistake apparent from the record. The said order of the Tribunal is a detailed speaking order and adjudicated 4 corners of the fact. The power of the Tribunal only to rectify the mistake apparent from the record as per order of Apex Court in the case of reliance utility. 4. We find no merit in the application for educating the same. Also, the petition is time-barred. No separate condonation of delay was filed by the assessee detail analysis of reason of delay. Accordingly the miscellaneous petition assessee is rejected on the ground as it is filed beyond the limitation period and time-barred as per section 254 (2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.04.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 26.04.2022 *GP/Sr. PS* MA No. 02/Asr/2019 Bharat Bhushan v. Asstt. CIT 3 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order