Sardar Bhavan Trust, Baroda V. The CIT-III, Baroda

MA 34/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6110 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTAD R
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' BEFORE SHRI T K SHARMA,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM M A NO.34/AHD/2010 [IN ITA NO.2427/AHD/2005] SARDAR BHUVAN TRUST, SARDAR BHAVAN, NEAR JUBELIBAUG GARDEN, VADODARA V/S COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX-III, INCOME-TAX OFFICE, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA PAN: AABTS 2068 P [APPLICANT] [ORIGINAL APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] [ORIGINAL RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SHRI SURESH THAKKAR, AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI R K DHANESTA,DR O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS MISC. APPLICATION[MA] HAS BEEN FILED ON 22. 2.2010 AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 27-1-2006 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2427/AHD/2005, DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT, GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA(1)(B)(I) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT,1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 . 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRUST SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TRUST WAS EARLIER REGISTE RED U/S 12A(A) OF THE ACT , ORDER OF CIT-III, VADODARA DATED 24.10.20 05 NEEDS TO BE CANCELLED AS NO SECOND ORDER NEED TO BE PASSED FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST U/S 12A(A), REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST BEI NG ONE TIME AFFAIR. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO PASS NECESS ARY ORDERS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 24.10.05 OF THE CI T-III, VADODARA. 3. THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY R EITERATED WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THE MA WHILE THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE MA. TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH, THE LD. AR ADMITTED THAT THE MA WAS FILED ONLY ON 22.2.2010 WHILE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS PRONOUNCED ON 27.1.2006. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY, IN THE INSTANT CASE,. ORDER OF THE IT AT IS DATED 27.1.2006 WHILE THE MA N O.34/AHD/2010 2 MA HAS BEEN FILED ON 22.2.2010 I.E BEYOND FOUR YEAR S FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT S. 254(2) OF THE ACT PROV IDES LIMITATION OF 4 YEARS FOR FILING AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF ORDER FROM THE DATE OF ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. THUS, MA HAS TO BE MADE BY AN AGGRIEVED PARTY SEEKING A RECTIFICATION WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPLICANT BEF ORE US DID NOT FILE THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION WITHIN FOUR YEARS FRO M THE DATE OF ORDER. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF LIMITATION LIKE ANY OTHER PROVISIONS MUST RECEIVE A CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE LA NGUAGE ON ITS PLAIN MEANING IMPORTS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B RITISH INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. CAPTAIN ITBAR SINGH AIR 1959 SC 1331 HELD THAT THE COURTS CANNOT ADD WORDS TO SECTION UNLESS THE PROVISIONS O F THE SECTION IN ITSELF ARE MEANINGLESS OR OF DOUBTFUL MEANING. SECTION 254(2) IN OUR OPINION IS NEITHER MEANINGLESS NOR OF A DOUBTFUL MEANING. MOREOVER ,TH E LAW OF LIMITATION VESTS A RIGHT IN A PARTY AND IF THE LIMITATION EXPIRES, A VESTED RIGHT ACCRUES TO THE OTHER PARTY AND THAT RIGHT CANNOT BE EASILY TAMPERED WITH . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CONDONAT ION OF DELAY IN FILING SUCH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOR ANY SUCH APPLICATION WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND RIGHTLY SO, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO REJECT THE MA FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE ITAT . THIS VIEW OF OURS IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS IN AJIT KUMAR PITALIYA VS. ITO,215 CTR 533(MP), A. S. CHINNASWAMY RAJU (HUF). VS ASSIS TANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION),300 ITR 96(KAR) ARVINDBH AI H. SHAH. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,91 ITD 101(AHMEDABAD ,SP ECIAL BENCH). 6. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION, MA IS R EJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 25-03-2011 SD/- SD/- (T.K.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 25-03-2011 MA N O.34/AHD/2010 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SARDAR BHUVAN TRUST, SARDAR BHAVAN, NR. JUBILEBA UG GARDEN, VADODARA 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-III, INCOME-TAX OFFIC E, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-C, AHMEDABAD 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD