| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0733 (Jp-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254(2)
Where there is no provision in the Act for condonation of delay for filing of the miscellaneous application, then miscellaneous application filed belatedly was not maintainable being barred by limitation provided under section 254(2).
|
Appeal (Tribunal) - Miscellaneous application under section 254(2) - Maintainability - Filing of M.A. beyond limitation
Matter was fixed for hearing on 20-7-2015, wherein none appeared on behalf of assessee and order was pronounced by Co-ordinate Bench on the very same date dismissing appeal of assessee and the order was dispatched to assessee on 27-7-2015. Assessee by way of miscellaneous application dt. 1-12-2020 filed under section 254(2), challenged order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in ITA No. 349/JP/2013, dated 20-7-2015. Held: It was not in dispute that assessee was in receipt of the order passed by Coordinate Bench. The unamended provisions of section 254(2) had prescribed limitation period of fours years from the date of order and under amended provisions w.e.f 1-6-2016, the period of limitation had been curtailed to six months from the end of the month in which order is passed. Therefore, in the instant case, where order was passed by Coordinate Bench on 20-7-2015 prior to the amendment w.e.f 1-6-2016, the period of limitation would be available to the assessee from the date of amendment, i.e. on 1-6-2016 for a period 6 months. Thus, miscellaneous application filed by assessee on 1-12-2020 was beyond the period of limitation which had expired on 30-11-2016. The limitation period is provided in the Act itself and there is no provision for condonation of delay, if any, in filing miscellaneous application and consequently, Tribunal had no jurisdiction/power to condone delay in filing the miscellaneous application. Accordingly, where there is no provision in the Act for condonation of delay for filing of the miscellaneous application, then miscellaneous application filed belatedly was not maintainable being barred by limitation provided under section 254(2). In the result, miscellaneous application so filed by assessee was dismissed.
Followed:Vinod Kumar Singh v. ITO M.A. No. 12/JP/2018 Order dt. 6-2-2018.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assesse.
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|