2007 (8) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I. T. A. No. 15/Ind./99 in relation to the assessment year 1994-95. 2. By the impugned order, the learned members of the Tribunal rejected the application made by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act as being barred by limitation, i.e., four years. In other words, the application made by the assessee seeking rectification of the main order in appeal was dismissed as not maintainable because the same was made after the expiry of four years from the date of passing of the main appellate order by the Tribunal which was ought to be rectified by invoking powers of section 254(2) ibid. It is this order of the Tribunal which is sought to be impugned by the assessee in this appeal under section 260A the Act. 3. So, the ques....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....office on July 24, 2006. In order to enable the Tribunal to entertain such application for rectification, it was obligatory upon the assessee to have filed such an application on or before April 12, 2006. As mentioned supra, it was not done because the application was filed after the expiry of four years' period, i.e., on July 24, 2006 (limitation expired on April 12, 2006). 7. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal committed no mistake in rejecting the application made by the assessee on the ground of limitation. In the absence of any provision for condonation of delay in filing such application, the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay. That apart, no such application was also filed by the assessee for condonation of delay and righ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hin four years from the date of appellate order sought to be rectified for its consideration on the merits. Thirdly; no such ground was ever taken by the assessee at any point of time either before the Assessing Officer or before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal in any of the main proceedings arising out of the main case on the merits. Fourthly, the assessee did not choose to prefer any regular appeal under section 260A of the Act against the appellate order of the Tribunal though he could have. It is for all these reasons we cannot entertain such argument which was pressed in service only for the sake of argument rather than of substance. In this view of the matter, the law laid down in the two cases relied h....