Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal could entertain a miscellaneous petition for rectification under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after the appeal had been dismissed as time-barred for want of any explanation for the delay.
Analysis: The appeal before the Tribunal had been filed beyond limitation by six days, and no statement, affidavit, or petition showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay had been filed despite repeated opportunities. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The subsequent miscellaneous petition sought rectification of that order, but the alleged defect did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. Once the appeal stood rejected as time-barred, section 254 did not permit the Tribunal to reopen the matter through rectification in the absence of a demonstrable apparent error.
Conclusion: The rectification petition was not maintainable and its rejection was upheld; the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal as barred by time and the refusal to rectify that order were sustained, leaving the assessee without relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen an order dismissing an appeal as time-barred when no sufficient cause for delay was shown.