2021 (2) TMI 903

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....54(2) of the I.T. Act. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 30.8.2019 and therefore, the M.A. ought to have been filed on or before 28.2.2020, whereas this M.A has been filed on 24.9.2020. Therefore, this M.A is barred by limitation. The learned DR has prayed for condonation of delay, but in a similar case before this Tribunal in M.A.33/Hyd/2020, the Tribunal has held as under: "2. The captioned Miscellaneous Application was filed on 24/07/2020, which is clearly beyond the due date as prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Act. The Registry has pointed out the above defect mentioning that this MA is filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, the MA is not maintainable. Learned Departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an order, as under Section 254(2) of the Act only the order can be rectified but cannot be recalled. We find that there is an error apparent on record and the miscellaneous application is to correct the error apparent from the record. The consequence of such rectification application being allowed may lead to a fresh hearing in the matter after having recalled the original order. However, the recall, if any, is only as a consequence of rectifying the original order. It is pertinent to note that Section 254(2) of the Act does not prohibit the recall of an order. In fact the power/jurisdiction of the Tribunal to recall an order on rectification application made under Section 254(2) of the Act is no longer resintegra. The issue stands covered....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the rectification of an order stands on the fundamental principle that justice is above all and upheld the exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Act by the Tribunal in recalling its earlier order dated 27 October 2000. Thus recall of an order is not barred on rectification application being made by one of the parties. In these circumstances, the application would be an application for rectification of the order dated 6 December 2007 and would stand governed by Section 254(2) of the Act. 17) In the facts of the present case there can be no denial that the order dated 6 December 2007 suffers from an error apparent from the record. The error is in having ignored the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders." This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible, for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining a decision of Court." 3. Further, the Supreme Court in Sneh Gupta v/s. Dev Sarup (2009) 6 SCC 194 has observed as under: "We are concerned herein with the question of limitation. The compromise decree, as indicated herein before, even if void was required to be set aside. A consent decree as is well known, is as good as a contested decree. Such a decree must be set aside if it has been passed in violation of law. For the said purpose, the provisions contained in Limitation Act 1963 would be applicable. It is not th....