TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of ACIT vs. Gayathri Infra Ventures Ltd, this M.A. is not maintainable. For the sake of ready reference, relevant paragraphs are reproduced below: "5. We find that w.e.f 1.6.2016, the statute has provided only a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed for filing of M.A. u/s 254(2) of the Act and the Tribunal does not have the power to condone delay in filing of the M.A beyond the said period. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs. ITAT (2013) 359 ITR 371, while dealing with an identical issue i.e. period of 4 years for filing of the application u/s 254(2) as was available prior to the amendment, has held as under: "16) It was next c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent on the face of the record and as a consequence therefore, Tribunal can even recall its order. In the above case before the Apex Court on 27 October 2000 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Stock Exchange holding that it was not entitled to exemption under Section 11 read with Section12 of the Act. On 13 November 2000 the Stock Exchange filed a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 5 September 2001 allowed the application and held that there was mistake apparent on the record which required rectification. Accordingly, the Tribunal recalled its order dated 27 October 2000 for the purpose of entertaining the appeal afresh. The revenue filed a writ petition i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....well be a consequence of rectifying an order under Section 254(2) of the Act. In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal holding that Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellant is barred by limitation under Section 254(2) of the Act as it was filed beyond a period of four years from the order sought to be rectified. 18) Before concluding, we would like to make it clear that an order passed in reach of Rule 24 of the Tribunal Rules, is an irregular order and not a void order. However, even if it is assumed that the order in breach of Rule 24 of the Tribunal Rules is an void order, yet the same would continue to be binding till it is set aside by a competent Tribunal. In fact, the Apex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is assumed that the order dated 6 December 2006 is a void order. 19) We shall now answer the questions arising in this case as raised by us in Paragraph 4 above as under: Question(a): No. The Tribunal has no power in terms of Rule 24 of the Tribunal Rules to dismiss an appeal before it for non prosecution. Question(b): The Miscellaneous application for recall of an order falls under Section 254(2) of the Act and not under Section 254(1) of the Act. Question(c): Does not arise in view of our response to query (b) above. 20) In view of the reasons given herein above, we find the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the Miscellaneous Application by its order dated 10 April 2013 as being beyond the period of four yea....