Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Shamsunissa Begum Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number : IT Appeal Nos. 1223 to 1226 (Bang.) of 2014, MP Nos. 8 to 11/(Bang.)/2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 31/03/2017
Related Assessment Year : 2005- 06 to 2008- 09
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

There is an apparent mistake in the order dated 7-4-2016 as the Tribunal has not decided the appeals of the assessee on merit but dismissed the same in limini for want of prosecution. However, the question of rectification of mistake cannot be entertained until and unless the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is found to be maintainable. The miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee are beyond the period of 6 months from 1-6-2016 and therefore the same are barred by limitation. In the 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 which cannot be supplied by us when there is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT

By way of these miscellaneous petitions, the assessee is seeking recalling of the order dated 7-4-2016 of this Tribunal whereby the appeals of the assessee were dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted 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 order 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 and does not have access to internet and other modes of communications to seek information such as date of hearing etc., and since the assessee did not receive notice of hearing of the appeal on 7-4-2016, therefore, the assessee could not communicate the date to the representative to appear before this Tribunal. The learned AR has thus pleaded that the reasons for not appearing are beyond the control of the assessee and therefore the impugned order may be recalled for giving an opportunity of hearing and deciding the appeals on merits.

3. On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently opposed to the miscellaneous application and submitted 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 amendment of section 254(2), the mistake in the order of the Tribunal can be rectified within the period of 6 months and since the assessee has filed these miscellaneous applications after the expiry of 6 months of limitation period, therefore the miscellaneous applications are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031