TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned common order, the Tribunal has dismissed various miscellaneous applications filed against its orders passed in appeals pertaining to the assessment years 1972-73 to 1984-85. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that all the applications are barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the period of four years from the date of the order passed by it on October 21, 1998. Since the issue raised in the present petition, namely, whether any time limit is prescribed for filing an application under section 254(2) of the Act for rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal, is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, which led to the filing of appeals before the Tribunal, disposed of vide order dated Oct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rescribed in the Act. To highlight the significance of a comma in a sentence, reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Sama Alana Abdulla v. State of Gujarat [1996] 1 SCC 427. Learned counsel has also relied on a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short, "the Board"), under section 119 of the Act on January 7, 1972, wherein it has been clarified that in all the cases where a valid application under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 154 of the Act had been filed by an assessee within the statutory time-limit of four years, but was not disposed of by the authority concerned within the time specified in sub-section (7) of section 154 of the Act, it may be disposed of by that authority even after th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er passed by it under section 254(1) of the Act with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record either suo motu or by an application. From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that the Tribunal is competent to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) within four years from the date of the order and not thereafter. In other words, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) after the expiry of four years from the date of the order, whether it is on its own volition or on an application being made by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. The provision admits of no other interpretation. If the stand of the petitioner is accepted, it would lead to an anomalous situation, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ardship, serious inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly or which leads to inconsistency or uncertainty and friction in the system which the statute purports to regulate has to be rejected and preference should be given to that construction which avoids such results." The above observations are apt in the present context. In discerning the correct interpretation, the purpose for which the provision was brought in, namely, to lay down the outer limit, within which the order could be modified, cannot be lost sight of. In our view, the provision of period of limitation under section 254(2) of the Act cannot be reduced to one of ornamental existence through the interpretative process, as pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner. I....