Appeal Dismissed for Time-Barred Claim under Section 254(2)

The appeal challenging the Tribunal's order from 2013 was dismissed for Assessment Year 2000-01. The Respondent's appeal was rejected in 2013 as time-barred under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Court emphasized the failure to seek COD approval and dismissed Revenue's claim that the order was under a different section. The Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, noting that the issue was not raised before the Tribunal, making the appeal not maintainable.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal under Section 260A challenging Tribunal's order dated 8th February, 2013 for Assessment Year 2000-01.
Questions of law raised:
(i) Dismissal of M.As filed by Department.
(ii) Dismissal without appreciating previous Tribunal decision.
Analysis:
The Respondent, a public sector undertaking, had an appeal dismissed by Tribunal in 2007 for lack of COD approval, with liberty to apply for recall later. In 2011, Supreme Court ruled COD approval not needed for inter-department disputes. In 2012, Appellant filed for recall, rejected in 2013 as time-barred under Section 254(2) of the Act. Revenue argued the order was under Section 225, not 254(1), so no limitation applied. Court noted previous decision against Revenue, emphasizing failure to seek COD approval. Despite Rule 12 of ITAT Rules, as appeal was in prescribed form, no need for rejection or amendment. Revenue's claim of order under Rule 12 dismissed, as no representation under Rule 7 occurred. Court rejected reliance on Delhi Tribunal decision, as Rule 12 not invoked in this case. Issue not raised before Tribunal, making appeal not maintainable. No substantial question of law found, appeal dismissed.

---