The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad V. Shri Chandrajit Rameshchandra, Ahmedabad

MA 306/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1111 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: L P JAIN
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

, . . , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 306/AHD/2017 ( IN ITA NO.2130/AHD/2013 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(1) AHMEDABAD / VS. SHRI CHANDRAJIT RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH AMRAPALI TOWER SHARDA MANDIR ROAD PALDI, AHMEDABAD ( / APPLICANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI L.P. JAIN, SR.DR REVENUE BY : -NONE- / DATE OF HEARING 06/12/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10/12/2019 / O R D E R PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF REVENUE POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 07/10/2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.2130/AHD/2013 FOR AY 20 11-12. 2. THE REGISTRY, AT THE OUTSET, POINTED OUT THA T THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DELAYED BY 131 DAYS. 3. I HAVE CONFRONTED THE LD.DR ABOUT THIS DELAY. H E POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMI SSIONER ON MA NO.306/AHD/2017 SHRI CHANDRAJIT RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - 27/01/2017. THEREAFTER, IT WAS PROCESSED AND AN AP PLICATION IS BEING FILED ON 05/12/2017. 4. THAT, SECTION 254(2) HAS DIRECT BEARING ON THE C ONTROVERSY. THEREFORE, IT IS IMPERATIVE UPON ME TO TAKE NOTE A OF IT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 254(2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WI THIN [SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PA SSED], 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 ASSESSE E OR THE (ASSESSING) OFFICER. 4.1. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE WOULD INDICATE THAT POI NTING OUT AN APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR REC TIFICATION A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS TO BE FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. RULE 35 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 PROVIDES COMMUNICATI ON OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. THIS RULE READS AS UNDER: ORDER TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PARTIES. THE TRIBUNAL SHALL, AFTER THE ORDER IS SIGNED, CAUS E IT TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND TO THE COMMISSIONE R. 4.2. A PERUSAL OF THIS RULE WOULD INDICATE THAT IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO COMMUNICATE ITS ORDER TO THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, WE MAY MA NO.306/AHD/2017 SHRI CHANDRAJIT RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - TAKE THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION AS THE DATE OF THE O RDER FROM WHICH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OUGHT TO BE FILED. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, EVEN IF WE TAKE THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION I.E. 27/01/2017 I NSTEAD OF DATE OF TRIBUNALS ORDER I.E. 07/10/2016, THIS MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. IT IS NOT WITHIN SIX MONTHS. THERE IS NO POWER WITH THE TRIBUNAL TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE DEPARTMENT HAS CITED AN ORDER DATED 09/10/2017 OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN MA NO.411/MU M/2016 TO 414/MUM/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7001/MUM/2010) FOR AY 2003-04 IN THE CASE OF M/S.LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES GRL LLC VS. ADDL.DIT (INTL.TAXATION). BUT TO MY MIND, THIS JUDGEMENT DO ES NOT DEAL WITH SPECIFIC PROPOSITION CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT RATHER ITS DISCUSSION IS ALTOGETHER IN A DIFFERENT TANGENT. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPLICATION. THUS, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION F ILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10-12- 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 10/ 12 /2019 #.. , .%../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS MA NO.306/AHD/2017 SHRI CHANDRAJIT RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPLICANTS. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. &'&() * / CONCERNED CIT 4. * ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. -. / %%() , () , ' / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / 12 3 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, - % //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 6.12.2019(DICTATION-PAD 2+P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..10.12.2019 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.10.12.19 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 10.12.19 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER