IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SHRI R. C. SHARMA , A M AND HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, J M M .A. NO . 201/MUM/2017 (IN ITA NO 2755 /MUM/201 5 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) ITO 9(2)(2), 601A, 6 TH FLOOR , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 . / VS. M/S CENEVO PUBLISHER SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KNOWLEDGE WORKS GLOBAL LTD.) 5 TH FLOOR, MARWAH CENTRE, KRISHANLAL MARWAH MARG, ANDHERI 9W), MUMBAI - 400 072 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AA CCK0612M ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGH , DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANISH SHAH , AR / DATE OF HEARING : 28/09 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/12/2018 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J UDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.08.16 PASSED IN ITA NO. 2755/MUM/15 FOR ASSESSMENT 2 M A NO. 201 /MUM/2017 M/S CENEVO PUBLISHER SERVICES LTD. YEAR 2008 - 09 FOR R ECALLING ORDER DATED 10.08.16 A ND FOR DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 2 . AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD. A R APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT MA FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS THE ORDER IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS PASSED ON 10.08.16 AND THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR FIL ING MA AS PER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IS 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH, IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. THUS IN THIS WAY, THE PRESENT APPLICATION MOVED BY THE REVENUE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 3. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES AT LENGTH ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THIS APPLICATION AND AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE ON 10.08.16 AND ACCORDINGLY, T HE PRESCRIBED PERIOD AS PER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT WAS 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. IN THIS WAY, THE TIME PERIOD FOR FILING THE MA WAS UP TO 28 TH FEB, 2017 , BUT THIS MISC. A PPLICATION HAS BEEN FI LED BY THE REVENUE ON 12.04.17 I.E. MUCH BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. 4. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN RESPECT OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED AND INTERPRETED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S SHAMSUNISSA BEGUM VRS DCIT (20 17) 83 TAXMAN.COM 96 (BAN - TRIB), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE PETITION FOR RECALLING TRIBUNALS 3 M A NO. 201 /MUM/2017 M/S CENEVO PUBLISHER SERVICES LTD. ORDER WAS FILED BEYOND PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FROM DATE OF TRIBUNALS ORDER, IN ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION TO CONDONE DELAY UNDER ACT, SAME WOULD BE BARRED BY LIMIT ATION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY VRS. ITO (2017) 88 TASMANN.COM 883(HYD - TRIB) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 254 OF THE IT. ACT 1961 APPELLATE TRIBUNAL POWERS OF (SCOPE OF POWER) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 0 8 SECTION 254(2) REFERS TO PERIOD OF LIMITATION RECKONING FROM END OF MONTH IN WHICH ORDER IS PASSED AND NOT FROM DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER. 5. AFTER PERUSING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF ITAT ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUES, WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE PRESENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 6 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISS ED WITH NO ORD ER AS TO COST. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DEC , 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( R. C. SHARMA ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 27 . 12 .201 8 SR.PS DHANANJAY. 4 M A NO. 201 /MUM/2017 M/S CENEVO PUBLISHER SERVICES LTD. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARD ED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY O RDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI