2019 (9) TMI 387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MA by the assessee. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the period of limitation should be reckoned with from the end of the month in which the order of the ITAT was served on the assessee. He vehemently contended that the date of the order cannot be the date from which the period of limitation is taken. 3. For the proposition that expression "order" means the date of effective service of the order, he relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. reported in (1959) ITR 264 (Bom.). He further relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Saibaba reported in (2003) 6 SCC 186 for the proposition that, "from the date of that order" must be constr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., as was being done in all cases where the Revenue as filed M.A.s with delay. 7. On merits he pointed out to para-4 of the Tribunal's order where a factual finding is given that it could be safely concluded that there is an oral contract entered into by the assessee with the ultimate truck owner through the medium of the truck drivers for which payments on account of transportation charges were made. 8. We have considered the arguments of both sides. Section 254(2) reads as follows: "(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 rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner, we find that the order has been pronounced on the open court on 19.09.2018 and hence we have to conclude that the petitioner had the knowledge of the order on the pronouncement of the date. 11. Even otherwise, the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd.(supra) and the case of D. Saibaba(supra), were concerned with the rights of the petitioners and not the powers of the Tribunal to pass an order u/s 254(2) of the Act. The power which is not given by the statute cannot be usurped by this Tribunal under any pretext. 12. Ahmedabad Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Arvindbhai H. Shah vs ACIT reported in [2004] 91 ITD 101 (AHD.) under identical ci....