आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री द ु व्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृ ष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLEJUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./M.A.No.04/Viz/2021 (Filed out of M.A.No.25/Viz/2019 arising out of ITA 447/Viz/2016) (ननधधारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2006-07) Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Rajamahendravaram Vs. Sri Laxmi Tulasi Agro Paper Pvt. Ltd. Rajamahendravaram [PAN :AAECS2798B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri GVN Hari, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent by : Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख/ Date of Hearing : 03.06.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member : The Revenue has filed miscellaneous application before the Tribunal against the order of the Tribunal in MA No.03/Viz/2019 dated 06.03.2020 arising out of ITA No.447/Viz/2016 & CO No.54/Viz/2018 dated 21.08.2018 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2006-07 with the delay of 182 days, beyond the due date prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). The Revenue has filed condonation petition, submitting that the M.A. was filed with the delay of 182 days due to Covid 2 MA No.04/Viz/2021, A.Y.2006-07 M/s Sri Laxmi Tulasi Agro Papers (P) Ltd., Rajahmundry 19 pandemic and structural changes in the department and therefore pleaded to condone delay. 2. We have heard the submissions of the Ld.DR. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in it’s Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020 ordered that the period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by the Court. Since then, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been extending the limitation period. Respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, since the period in filing the application belatedly is within the limitation period prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we condone the delay and admit the application for hearing. 3. However, it is observed that the revenue has filed this Miscellaneous Application against the order of the Tribunal in MA No.03/Viz/2019 dated 06.03.2020 arising out of ITA No.447/Viz/2016 & CO No.54/Viz/2018 dated 21.08.2018 is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ITAT (196 ITR 838) which reads as under : “Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Tribunal to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record at any time within four years from the date of the order. Therefore, to attract the applicability 3 MA No.04/Viz/2021, A.Y.2006-07 M/s Sri Laxmi Tulasi Agro Papers (P) Ltd., Rajahmundry of section 254(2), the mistake which is sought to be rectified must be apparent from the record and the same must be in any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 254. An order rejecting an application for rectification under section 254(2) is not an order passed under section 254(1) and it cannot be rectified under section 254(2).” Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr.S.Panneerselvam Vs. ACIT & others in W.P.Nos. 18693 and 18694 of 2006 has also taken the same view while considering the Hon’ble Orissa High Court’s decision as under : “...........In the present case, the rectification was ordered in terms of Section 254(2) and it got merged with the original order passed under Section 254(1). What has been refused by the Tribunal while allowing the application under section 254(2) should be read as having been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner cannot file another application to grant further benefits. Successive application for rectification of the original order cannot be maintained as it will defeat the object of Section 254(2) of the Act. Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for rectification of any mistake apparent from the order passed by it under Section 254(1) of the Act. Once this has been done, no further application is maintainable. The remedy by way of appeal is the only course open.” 4. Hence, respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts supra, the M.A filed against M.A. by the Revenue is not maintainable, hence, dismissed as non-maintainable. 5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue is dismissed. 4 MA No.04/Viz/2021, A.Y.2006-07 M/s Sri Laxmi Tulasi Agro Papers (P) Ltd., Rajahmundry Order Pronounced in open Court on 30 th August,2022. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृ ष्णन) (द ु व्वूरुआर.एल रेड्डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 30.08.2022 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. रधजस्व/The Revenue –Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajamahendravaram 2.ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee–Sri Laxmi Tulasi Agro Paper Pvt. Ltd., Jayakrishnapuram, Rajamahendravaram 3.प्रधानआयकरआयुक्त/ The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Guntur 5.नवभधगीयप्रनतनननध, आयकरअपीलीयअनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम/ DR,ITAT,Visakhapatnam 6.गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam