ITAT Mumbai dismisses appeals seeking order recall, emphasizes statutory time limit

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai dismissed the appeals of the assessee seeking recall of the Tribunal's ex parte order dated 3.2.2003, as the applications for rectification were filed after the four-year period specified under section 254(2). The Tribunal held that rectification must be done within the prescribed time limit, citing legal precedents and emphasizing the need to adhere to the statutory timeframe. The Tribunal referred to relevant case law and decisions to support its position that remedial action must be taken within four years from the date of the order, ultimately dismissing the applications as barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues involved: Recall of Tribunal's order u/s 254(2) for rectification of mistake apparent from the record after a period of four years from the date of the order.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai, in the case of the assessee seeking recall of the Tribunal's order dated 3.2.2003 passed ex parte, dismissed the appeals of the assessee being ITA No. 895 & 896/Mum/97. The Tribunal observed that the applications seeking rectification of the order were filed by the assessee after the specified period of four years from the date of the order passed u/s. 254(1). The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the date when the order of the Tribunal was served on the assessee should be considered as the date of the Tribunal's order for calculating the time limit of four years specified in section 254(2). However, the Tribunal held that the provisions of section 254(2) are clear and specific, and cited judicial pronouncements to support the position that rectification must be done within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal emphasized that the power for remedial action must be exercised within the four-year limit as specified in the law.

The Tribunal referred to the case law CIT vs. Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and decisions of various High Courts to establish that the Tribunal is competent to amend any order passed u/s. 254(1) within a period of four years from the date of the order and not thereafter. It was emphasized that the provisions of section 254(2) admit no other interpretation. Considering the legal position and the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that the applications filed by the assessee beyond the four-year period from the date of the corresponding order passed u/s. 254(2) are barred by limitation and are liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the delay in service of the order of the Tribunal to the assessee was attributable to the assessee, as evident from the sequence of events provided.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee, pronouncing the order on 25th March, 2010.

---