DCIT, CHENNAI V. Akshaya Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI

MA 85/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5542 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NATARAJA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A BENCH, CHENNAI , . , !' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.85/MDS/2017 IN I.T.A.NOS.666/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE- I(1), CHENNAI VS M/S. AKSHAYA PVT. LTD., G SQUARE, 46, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI, KANDANCHAVADI, CHENNAI 600 096 PAN: AAFCA1708D (PETITIONER) ( / RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI NATARAJA, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 20.10.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.10.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE PRAYING FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD BY RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN I.T.A. NO.666/MDS/2016 DA TED 14.06.2016. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THA T THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BEYO ND THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE OR DER. 2 MP NO.85/MDS/2017 THEREFORE THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS BARED BY LIMITATION AS PER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT WHIC H HAS COME INTO EFFECT FROM 01.06.2016 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016. T HE LD.AR FURTHER CITED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE MS. SHAMSUNISSA BEGUM VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 83 TAXMANN.C OM 96 AND SMT. PADMA K. BHAT VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 83 TAXMANN. COM 403 TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND REL IED IN SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT AND PLEADED FOR THE CONDONATI ON OF DELAY IN FILING THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENU E IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL, BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DATED 14.06.2016 AND THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ON 20.03.2017 I.E., AFTER THE LAPSE OF 8 MONTHS. F URTHER, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT ALSO MAKES I T CLEAR THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS TO BE MANDATORILY FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PRONOUNCED. MOREOVER THE BANGALORE BEN CHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION AND FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF THE 3 MP NO.85/MDS/2017 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE BHARAT PETROL EUM CORPORATION LTD. VS. ITAT REPORTED IN 359 ITR 371 H AS HELD THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF S IX MONTHS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. RELYING ON THE A BOVE MENTIONED DECISIONS, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO HOLD TH AT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BARR ED BY LIMITATION AND HENCE NOT MAINTAINABLE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDIN GLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 20 TH OCTOBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, ! /DATED 20 TH OCTOBER, 2017 RSR . $%&' ()& /COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. * ( ('% )/CIT(A) 4. * /CIT 5. &,- . /DR 6. -/ % /GF.