Shamsunnisa Begum, V. Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

MA 8/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5323 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: H R SURESH
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [ M P NO. 8 TO 11 /B/201 7 (IN ITA NO.1223 TO 1226/B/2014)] (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 5 - 06 TO 2008 - 09 ) MS. SHAMSUNISSA BEGUM, D/O. MIR HASSAN ALI, NO.8-9-633, NEAR NEHRU STADIUM, BIDAR. PAN:APHPB9973P APPELLANT VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), BENGALURU. RESPONDENT APP ELLANT BY : SHRI. H. R . SURESH , CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS , JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 /0 3 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 3 1 /0 3 /2017 O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER BY WAY OF THESE MISCELLANEOUSS PETITIONS, THE ASSES SEE IS SEEKING RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2016 OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREBY THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. [MP NO. 8 TO 11/B/2017 (IN ITA NO.1223 TO 1226/B/2014)] PAGE 2 OF 9 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT SINCE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED IN LIMINE WITHOUT PROCEEDING ON MERITS. THEREFORE, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED FOR GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING AND DECIDING THE APPEALS ON MERITS. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A 73 YEAR OLD LADY A ND DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO INTERNET AND OTHER MODES OF COMMUNIC ATIONS TO SEEK INFORMATION SUCH AS DATE OF HEARING ETC., AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE A PPEAL ON 07.04.2016, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMMU NICATE THE DATE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TR IBUNAL. THE LEARNED AR HAS THUS PLEADED THAT THE REASONS FOR NO T APPEARING ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFOR E THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR GIVING AN OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING AND DECIDING THE APPEALS ON MERITS. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THESE ARE BARRED BY LIMITATIONS AS PER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DR HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AFTER THE AME NDMENT OF SECTION 254(2), THE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL CAN BE [MP NO. 8 TO 11/B/2017 (IN ITA NO.1223 TO 1226/B/2014)] PAGE 3 OF 9 RECTIFIED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND SINCE T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AFTER THE EX PIRY OF 6 MONTHS OF LIMITATION PERIOD, THEREFORE THE MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ON 13.01.2017 FOR RECALLING OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 07.04.2016. THE PROVISION OF RECTIF ICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IS PROVIDED UNDER SECT ION 254(2) AS UNDER: 254. (1) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT 46 . (1A) 48[***] (2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD 51 , AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT 51 IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE 52 [ASSESSING] OFFICER: PROVIDED THAT AN AMENDMENT WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF ENHANCING AN ASSESSMENT OR REDUCING A REFUND OR OTHERWISE INCREASING THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, SHALL NOT BE MADE UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION UNLESS THE APPEL LATE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE OF ITS IN TENTION TO DO SO AND HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD: 53 [PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ANY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS SUB-SECTION ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998, SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A FEE OF FIF TY RUPEES.] [MP NO. 8 TO 11/B/2017 (IN ITA NO.1223 TO 1226/B/2014)] PAGE 4 OF 9 4. THE TIME PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM RECORD CAN BE RECTIFIED HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM 4 YEA RS TO 6 MONTHS BY THE AMENDMENT VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2016 W.E. F. 01.06.2016. THUS AFTER THE SUBSTITUTION OF THIS PR OVISION W.E.F. 01.06.2016, THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IS PROVIDED ONLY FOR 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 07 .04.2016 AND AFTER THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 254(4) W.E.F. 01 .06.2016, THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE F ILED BEFORE 31.12.2016. PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT, THE LIMITATION WAS PROVIDED AS 4 YEARS FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FR OM RECORD AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR CONDONATION OF ANY DELAY OF ANY PETITION FOR RECTIF ICATION OF MISTAKE FILED AFTER THE SAID PERIOD OF 4 YEARS. EV EN OTHERWISE, THE LIMITATION OF 4 YEARS WAS MORE THAN THE LIMITATION FOR FILING OF THE SUITE AND AS PER THE GENERAL STATUTE I.E., THE LIMI TATION ACT WHERE THE LIMITATION FOR INSTITUTION OF SUIT IS PROVIDED AS 3 YEARS ONWARDS FROM THE DATE OF CAUSE OF ACTION ARISED AND THEREFO RE THERE WAS NO PROVISION EVEN IN THE LIMITATION ACT FOR CONDONA TION OF DELAY IN RESPECT OF DELAY IN FILING THE SUIT. SINCE THE LIMITATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IS PROVIDED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT ITSELF, THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF LIMITATION ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE SO FAR [MP NO. 8 TO 11/B/2017 (IN ITA NO.1223 TO 1226/B/2014)] PAGE 5 OF 9 AS THE LIMITATION PROVIDED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT. THIS PRINCIPLE IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHEN THERE IS A PROVISION IN SPEC IAL STATUTE, THEN THE GENERAL STATUTE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE EXTENT OF THE PROVISION PROVIDED IN THE SPECIAL STATUTE. WE FIND THAT PRIO R TO THE AMENDMENT THE LIMITATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTA KE WAS 4 YEARS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 254(2) AND THEREFORE THER E WAS NO QUESTION OF PROVIDING ANY PROVISION OR POWER TO THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO CONDONE THE DELAY AFTER THE E XPIRY OF SUCH 4 YEARS OF LIMITATION. HOWEVER, IN THE AMENDED PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT UNDER SECTION 254(2), THE LIMITATION FOR RECTIFICAT ION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD HAS BEEN DRASTICALLY REDUC ED FROM 4 YEARS TO 6 MONTHS AND IN CASE OF A DELAY IN APPLYIN G FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, THE PARTY WHO IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL SUFFERING F ROM MISTAKE WILL BE SUBJECTED TO A GREAT HARDSHIP AND DEPRIVATION OF VALUABLE RIGHT OF PURSUING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION GIVING POWER OR JURISDICTION TO THIS TRIBUNAL TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE PETITION FOR RECTIF ICATION OF THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED STRICTLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS AS PROVID ED IN THE STATUTE. [MP NO. 8 TO 11/B/2017 (IN ITA NO.1223 TO 1226/B/2014)] PAGE 6 OF 9 5. WE HAVE NO DOUBT IN OUR MIND THAT THERE IS AN AP PARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2016 AS THE TRIBUN AL HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT BUT D ISMISSED THE SAME INLIMINI FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED UNTI L AND UNLESS THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOU ND TO BE MAINTAINABLE. THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FROM 01.06.2016 A ND THEREFORE THE SAME ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION TO CONDONE THE DELAY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, IT MAY BE A CASE OF OMISSION IN THE PROVISION OF ACT W HICH CANNOT BE SUPPLIED BY US WHEN THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., VS. ITAT AND OTHERS 359 ITR 371, WHILE DEALING WITH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS HELD IN PARAS 16 TO 18 AS UNDER: 16 IT WAS NEXT CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER T HAT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IS ONL Y TO RECTIFY AN ERROR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IT DOES NOT EMPOWER THE T RIBUNAL TO RECALL ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED DECEMBER 6, 2007, FOR WHICH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS FILED ON AUGUST 6, 2012. IT WAS SUB MITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER THAT THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(1 ) OF THE ACT WOULD BE THE ONLY PROVISION UNDER WHICH AN APPLICATION COULD BE MADE FOR RECALL OF AN ORDER, AS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT ONLY THE ORDER CAN BE RECTIFIED BUT CANNOT BE RECALLED. WE FIND THAT THER E IS AN ERROR APPARENT ON RECORD AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS TO C ORRECT THE ERROR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH R ECTIFICATION APPLICATION BEING ALLOWED MAY LEAD TO A FRESH HEARI NG IN THE MATTER AFTER HAVING RECALLED THE ORIGINAL ORDER. HOWEVER, THE RE CALL, IF ANY, IS ONLY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF RECTIFYING THE ORIGINAL ORDER. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT [MP NO. 8 TO 11/B/2017 (IN ITA NO.1223 TO 1226/B/2014)] PAGE 7 OF 9 SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE REC ALL OF AN ORDER. IN FACT THE POWER/JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL AN ORDER ON RECTIFICATION APPLICATION MADE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA. THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE APE X COURT IN ASST. CIT V. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) WHICH HELD THAT THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIE W ITS OWN ORDER, YET IT HAS JURISDICTION TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL CAN E VEN RECALL ITS ORDER. IN THE ABOVE CASE, BEFORE THE APEX COURT ON OCTOBER 27, 2000, THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF STOCK EXCHANGE HOLDING THAT IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE ACT. ON NOVEMBER 13, 2000, THE STOCK EXCHANGE FILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2001, ALLOWED THE APPLICATION AN D HELD THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD WHICH REQUIRED REC TIFICATION. ACCORD- INGLY, THE TRIBUNAL RECALLED ITS ORDER DATED OCTOBE R 27, 2000, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERTAINING THE APPEAL AFRESH. THE REVE NUE FILED A WRIT PETITION IN THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CHALLENGING THE ORDER DAT ED SEPTEMBER 5, 2001. THE ABOVE CHALLENGE BY THE REVENUE WAS TURNED DOWN BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL TO THE APEX COURT WHICH ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE. THE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORIGINAL OR DER WHILE DISMISSING THE STOCK EXCHANGE (ASSESSEE'S) APPEAL OVERLOOKED T HE BINDING DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THIS MISTAKE WAS CORRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE SUPRE ME COURT HELD THAT THE RECTIFICATION OF AN ORDER STANDS ON THE FUNDAME NTAL PRINCIPLE THAT JUSTICE IS ABOVE ALL AND UPHELD THE EXERCISE OF POW ER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RECALLING ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED OCTOBER 27, 2000. THUS, RECALL OF AN ORDER IS NOT BARRED ON REC TIFICATION APPLICATION BEING MADE BY ONE OF THE PARTIES. IN THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, THE APPLICATION WOULD BE AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE OR DER DATED DECEMBER 6, 2007, AND WOULD STAND GOVERNED BY SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 17 IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THERE CAN BE NO DENIA L THAT THE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 6, 2007, SUFFERS FROM AN ERROR APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORD. THE ERROR IS IN HAVING IGNORED THE MANDATE OF RULE 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES WHICH REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTE R ON THE MERITS AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENTS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AN APPLICATION FOR RECTI- FICATION WOULD HE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE RECALL OF AN ORDER WOULD WELL BE A CONSEQUENCE OF RECTIFYING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AS I WAS FILED BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE OR DER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. 18 BEFORE CONCLUDING, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR T HAT AN ORDER PASSED IN [MP NO. 8 TO 11/B/2017 (IN ITA NO.1223 TO 1226/B/2014)] PAGE 8 OF 9 BREACH OF RULE 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES, IS AN IRRE GULAR ORDER AND NOT A VOID ORDER. HOWEVER, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE ORDE R IN BREACH OF RULE 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES IS AN VOID ORDER, YET THE SAME WOULD CONTINUE TO BE BINDING TILL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COMPETENT TRIBUNA L. IN FACT, THE APEX COURT IN THE SULTAN SADIK V. SANJAY RAJ SUBBA REPORTED IN [2004] 2 SCC 377 H OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'PATENT AND LATENT INVALIDITY IN A WELL KNOWN PASSAGE LORD RADCLIFFE SAID: 'AN ORDER, EVEN IF NOT MADE IN GOOD FAITH, IS STILL AN ACT CAPABLE AT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. IT BEARS NO BRAND OF INVALIDITY UPON ITS FOREHEAD.. UNLESS THE NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS ARE TAKEN AT LAW T O ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF INVALIDITY AND TO GET IT QUASHED OR OTHERW ISE UPSET, IT WILL REMAIN AS EFFECTIVE FOR ITS OSTENSIBLE PURPOSE AS T HE MOST IMPECCABLE OF ORDERS.' THIS MUST BE EQUALLY TRUE EVEN WHERE THE 'BRAND OF INVALIDITY' IS PLAINLY VISIBLE : FOR THERE ALSO THE ORDER CAN EFFE CTIVELY BE RESISTED IN LAW ONLY BY OBTAINING A DECISION OF THE COURT.' FURTHER, THE SUPREME COURT IN SNEH GUPTA V. DEVI SA RUP [200916 SCC 194 HAS OBSERVED: 'WE ARE CONCERNED HEREIN WITH THE QUESTION OF LIMIT ATION. THE COMPROMISE DECREE, AS INDICATED HEREIN BEFORE, EVEN IF VOID WAS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE. A CONSENT DECREE AS IS WE LL KNOWN, IS AS GOOD AS A CONTESTED DECREE. SUCH A DECREE MUST BE SET ASIDE IF IT HAS BEEN PASSED IN VIOLATION OF LAW. FOR THE SAID PURPOSE, THE PROV ISIONS CONTAINED IN THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963, WOULD BE APPLICABLE. IT IS NO T THE LAW THAT WHERE THE DECREE IS VOID, NO PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHALL B E ATTRACTED AT ALL.' THEREFORE, IN THIS CASE ALSO THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEA RS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED/RECALLED WI L L APPLY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THIS IS SO EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 6, 2006, IS A VOID ORDER. 19 WE SHALL NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ARISING IN TH IS CASE AS RAISED BY US IN PARAGRAPH 4 ABOVE AS UNDER : QUESTION (A) : NO. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER IN TER MS OF RULE 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES TO DISMISS AN APPEAL BEFORE IT FOR N ON-PROSECUTION. QUESTION (B) : THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR RE CALL OF AN ORDER FALLS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTI ON 254(1) OF THE ACT. QUESTION (C) : DOES NOT ARISE IN VIEW OF OUR RESPON SE TO QUERY (B) ABOVE. 20. IN VIEW OF THE REASONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE, WE FI ND THE TRIBUNAL WAS COR- 20 RECT IN DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY ITS ORDER DATED APRIL 10, 2013, AS BEING BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 21. ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITION IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. [MP NO. 8 TO 11/B/2017 (IN ITA NO.1223 TO 1226/B/2014)] PAGE 9 OF 9 7. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., VS. ITAT AND OTH ERS (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PROVIDED UNDER S ECTION 254(2) AND ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST MARCH , 2017. SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R PLACE : BANGALORE DATED : 31/3/2017 /NS/ COPY TO : 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE