Accost Media LLP Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition filed by Accost Media LLP seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 13th October 2025, in which the ITAT rejected the petitioner’s rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of limitation. The petitioner had filed a Miscellaneous Application for rectification of the ITAT order dated 10th December 2024. The ITAT had deemed the application time-barred because it was filed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the ITAT order was passed. The petitioner received the ITAT order only on 24th March 2025 and filed the rectification application on 16th July 2025, asserting that the limitation period should run from the date of receipt, not the date of passing of the order.
The petitioner relied on Rule 34A of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 read with Rule 9. Rule 34A requires that applications under Section 254(2) be filed in triplicate, with the procedure for appeals applied mutatis mutandis. Rule 9 requires that a memorandum of appeal be accompanied by two copies of the order appealed against, at least one being a certified copy. The court observed that it is impossible for a petitioner to approach the ITAT under Section 254(2) without receiving a copy of the order. In the present case, the petitioner was supplied a copy on 24th March 2025, and the rectification application was filed well within six months from that date. The High Court concluded that the limitation period should start from the date of receipt of the order rather than the date of its passing.
