, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 72/CHNY/2019 [IN I.T.A. NO. 658/CHNY/2018] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S. EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LIMITED, 1/24, GST ROAD, MEENAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 027. [PAN: AAACE2125M] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(1), CHENNAI. ( APPELLANT ) (R ESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.V. BALAJI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : MRS. R. ANITHA, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 21.06.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.07.2019 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY MEANS OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO.658/CHNY/2018 DATED 07.08.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. AT THE OUTSET, 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 WAS PASSED, IS SIX MONTHS FOR SEEKING RECALL I.E., PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO M.P. NO. 72/CHNY/19 2 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 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 254 (2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED, WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY 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 ASSESSEE OR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE ABOVEMENTIONED 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 07.08.2018 AND FROM THE END OF THE MONTH; THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTH EXPIRES ON 28.02.2019. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON 27.03.2019 RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. HOWEVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROCEDURES AS WELL AS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION SET OUT IN THE ACT ARE MAINLY INTENDED TO SUBSERVE THE INTEREST OF THE PARTIES AND IN TAX MATTERS AND IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS IT LIES BETWEEN IN TWO PARTIES BUT ONLY TAX ADJUSTMENT. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS TO BE GIVEN IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED FOR RECALLING THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 07.08.2018. 5. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WAS FILED MUCH AFTER THE TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AND PLEADED THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN VIEW OF THE STATUTE. M.P. NO. 72/CHNY/19 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION STANDS ENDED BY 28.02.2019. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT PETITION ONLY ON 27.03.2019, WHICH IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 26 TH JULY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 26.07.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.