Anjani Synthetics Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

MA 219/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6386 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOURABH SINGH
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO.219/AHD/2017 IN ITA.NO.1218/AHD/2014 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2009-10 ANJANI SYNTHETICS LTD. 221/MALIA, NEW CLOTH MARKET AHMEDABAD. PAN : AABCA 2789 E VS DCIT,CIR.1 AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAURAV NAHTA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SOURABH SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 20/04/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24/04/2018 !'/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKS RECALL OF EX PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO.1218 /AHD/20 14 DATED 30.11.2016 VIDE WHICH APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. AT THE THRESHOLD, IT HAS BEEN POINTED TO THE BEN CH THAT MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AP PLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN THE APPLICATION IT IS PLEADED THAT A DEL AY OF 23 DAYS WAS OCCURRED DUE TO THE FACT THAT ACCOUNTANT OF THE FIRM WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE LAW STIPULATING TIME LIMIT FOR FILING MISC. APPLICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND MA NO.219/AHD/2017 2 THEREFORE, DELAY WAS OCCURRED IN HANDING OVER OF NE CESSARY PAPERS TO THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURTHER COURSE OF ACTIO N. AFFIDAVIT OF THE ACCOUNTANT HAS BEEN FILED TO THIS EFFECT. THE LD.CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE DELAY WAS OCCURRED DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CHANGE IN LAW ON THE PART OF THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE FIRM, DELAY IN FILING THE MA MAY BE CONDONED AND THE MA SEEKING RECALL OF THE IM PUGNED EX PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.11.2016 MAY BE CONSIDERED ON MERIT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR STRONGLY OBJECTED TO ADMISSION OF T HE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT IN SECTION 254(2) BY FINANCE ACT, 2016 BY WHICH EXPRESSION FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER WAS SUBSTITUTED W.E.F. 1-6-2016 BY SIX MONTHS FROM END IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS BARRED BY LIMI TATION. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT AS PER AMENDMENT MADE IN S ECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY FINANCE ACT, 2016, WITH EF FECT FROM 1.6.2016, TIME WITHIN WHICH MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD CAN BE RE CTIFIED HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM 4 YEARS TO 6 MONTHS. IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER SUB STITUTION OF THIS PROVISION WITH EFFECT FROM 1-6-2016, THE LIMITATION PERIOD FO R FILING MISC. APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD I S PROVIDED ONLY FOR 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED OR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE PAR TY. WE FIND THAT ITAT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 30.11.2016, COPY OF WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 12.12.2016. AGAINST THIS EXPARTE ORDER ASSESSEE FILED THE MA ON 3.8.2017. IT COULD HAVE B EEN FILED BEFORE 11.6.2017. THUS, THERE IS A TIME GAP OF MORE THAN 41 DAYS BETW EEN DATE OF RECEIPT OF IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE DATE OF FILLING OF THE PRESE NT MA, WHICH IS MUCH BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT STIPULATED IN THE ACT. THE AMENDED PROVISION IN THIS MA NO.219/AHD/2017 3 BEHALF IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. THERE IS NO POWER WITH THE ITAT TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THE MISCELLA NEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIT BY THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PROV IDED IN UNDER SECTION 254(2) AND NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMI SSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, MA OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24 TH APRIL, 2018 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER