ACIT, CHENNAI V. Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Limited, CHENNAI

MA 308/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7916 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS R ANITA
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 308/CHNY/2017 [IN I.T.A. NO.537/CHNY/2013] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, ROOM NO.409, 4 TH FLOOR, TOWER-1, BSNL BUILDING, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. VS. M/S. POOMPUHAR SHIPPING CORPORATION LTD., 692, ANNA SALAI, NANDANAM, CHENNAI-600 035. [PAN: AAACP 4383 J] ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MRS.R. ANITA, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : MR. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 26.10.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.12.2018 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY MEANS OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE REVENUE SEEKS TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO.537/MDS/2013 DATED 30.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. BY REFERRING TO THE PETITION, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WHILE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE REPORTED IN [2014] 360 ITR 257, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER MP NO. 308/CHNY/17 2 OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREAS, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE, THEREBY, THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WARRANTING RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.09.2016. IT WAS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR THAT EVEN THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON 30.09.2016, THE SAME WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (JUDICIAL) ONLY ON 08.12.2016. HENCE, THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF FURTHER APPEAL TO HONBLE HC WAS ON 06.04.2017. WHILE THE FILE WAS PROCESSED FOR SUCH APPEAL, IT WAS DECIDED TO FILE A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEFORE THE ITAT INSTEAD OF FILING OF FURTHER APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. SINCE AT THE TIME OF TAKING A DECISION ON FILING OF FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR WHICH THE TIME WAS THERE TILL 06.04.2017, IT WAS DECIDED TO PREFER A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEFORE THE ITAT, WHICH WAS FILED ON 18.04.2017 AND THEREBY THE DELAY OF 18 DAYS HAD OCCURRED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. DR PLEADED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AND THE MP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED. 2. PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PRESENT PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE APPEAL ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION SHALL BE RECKONED FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER MP NO. 308/CHNY/17 3 WAS PASSED, IS SIX MONTHS FOR SEEKING RECALL I.E., PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO SEEK RECTIFICATION OF THE SAID ORDER WITHIN SIX MONTHS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AS AMENDED W.E.F. 01.06.2016. EVEN THOUGH THE SAID PROVISION EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO SUO MOTO RECTIFY ITS MISTAKE OR ENABLE THE PARTIES TO THE ORDER TO SEEK RECTIFICATION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION I.E., SIX MONTHS IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ORDER WAS PASSED/PRONOUNCED ON 30.09.2016 AND FROM THE END OF THE MONTH, THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTH PERIOD EXPIRES ON 31.03.2017. THE DEPARTMENT FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON 18.04.2017 RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.09.2016. 3. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL HAS RELIED ON CORRECT JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, BUT, BY REPRODUCING THE HELD- PORTION PRINTED IN THE ITR AT PAGE 265, THE CONCLUSION WAS MISTAKENLY DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS A RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION STANDS ENDED BY 31.03.2017. SINCE THE REVENUE FILED THE PRESENT PETITION ON 18.04.2017, WHICH IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED UNDER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE MP NO. 308/CHNY/17 4 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 31 ST DECEMBER, 2018 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, 31.12.2018 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.