2017 (8) TMI 1250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation. 2. At the outset it may be noticed that the per the present practice followed by the Tribunal, the order was pronounced on 21.06.2016 in the open court and the time limit, reckoned from the end of the month in which the order was passed, is six months for seeking recall i.e., parties are entitled to seek rectification of the said order within Six months u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended w.e.f. 01.06.2016 which reads as under :- "254 (2) The Appellate Tribunal May, at any time within "six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed". With a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er by the parties" LD. Counsel for the assessee filed written submissions incorporating the provisions of sections 254(2), 254(3) of the Act and Rules 34(1) and 35 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 to submit that it is mandatory to serve a copy of the order on the parties and hence, the time limit starts only from the 'date of receipt of the order' He referred to the orders of the Hon'ble delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sudhir Choudhrie: Rajiv Choudhrie [2005] 278 ITR 490 wherein, the Court observed that pronouncement of the order is mandatory so as to facilitate the parties to lawfully know the result as well as to avoid unnecessary delay in communication of the orders. He further, relled upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... application for rectification, we are not inclined to accept the said contention, for the reason that, there are no averments in the miscellaneous petition, as to when the order was served on the appellant." 4. From the above observations, Ld Counsel for the assessee submits that while computing the period of limitation u/s 254 (2) of the Act, the time taken for obtaining the copy of the order should also be considered. 5. On the other hand, Ld DR submitted that the expression "passed", "initiated" and "served/received" are not interchangeable; the legislature, in its wisdom, used appropriate phraseology with the clear intention befitting the occasion. For example, in section 275 (1) (a) of the Act, time limit was "six months from the en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the order. 7. Even if a liberal view has to be taken, in can be considered as the date of uploading of the order. Ordinarily anything which is uploaded in the public domain can be accessed by the public at large and even the assessee would have access to the order and such a date always be treated as the service of the order. In the instant case, the noting of the Sr. Private Secretary in the book indicate that the order was uploaded on 21.06.2016. The judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, though referred to the latest provisions, cannot be taken aid inasmuch as the Hon'ble High Court was dealing with the application filed in 2015, which is a date anterior to the introduction of six months limitation period. Even otherwise, the ob....