2010 (3) TMI 1185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g rectification of the order of the Tribunal has been filed by the assessee on 5.8.2009 i.e. after a period of four years from the date of the order of the Tribunal which is being sought to be rectified. As per the provisions of section 254(2), which are very specific and clear, the Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under section 254(1) with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record at any time within four years from the date of such order. As already noted, the present application itself has been filed by the assessee after a period of four years from the date of the order corresponding order passed u/s. 254(1). In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the statement prepared and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on has to be passed within the outer limit of four years and it is, therefore, not possible for the court to read anything else into the said provisions which would otherwise extend the outer limit prescribed therein. The order passed by the Tribunal u/s. 254(2) beyond the period of four years from the date of corresponding order, therefore, was held to be null and void by the Hon'ble Madras High Court observing that power in respect of remedial action has to be exercised within the prescribed time. To the similar effect is the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of A.S. Chennaswamy Raju (HUF) vs. ACIT (Inv.) reported in 300 ITR 96 wherein application for rectification of the order passed on 6.4.98 u/s. 254(1) was filed by ....