TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of the Tribunal has been passed. As per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, the appellate tribunal may at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed may rectify it if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Miscellaneous Application is filed beyond the prescribed limit. In this regard, the Department in Para no.7 of its Miscellaneous Application has submitted as under:- "7. That the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar was received in the office of Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana on 18.01.2024 and the limitation period in this case falls on 31.07.2024 as decided by various High Courts which was incorporated by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.A. No. 63/Chny/2020 (arising out of ITA No. 1203/Chny/2019) dated 30.06.2022 in the case of DCIT, Corporate Circle-2, Combatore vs. M/s K.P.R. Mills Ltds., Coimbatore." 2.1. Thus, it is seen that the above order dated 10.11.2023 of the Tribunal in this case was received in the office of the Pr. CIT, Central, Ludhiana on 18.01.2024 and the Department submits that the limitation period in this case falls on 31.07....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing filed within six months from the date of the Collector's award. It was held that "the date of the award" cannot be determined solely by reference to the time when the award is signed by the Collector or delivered by him in his office. It must involve the consideration of the question as to when it was known to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If that be the true position, then placing a literal and mechanical construction on the words "the date of the award" occurring in the relevant section would not be appropriate. It is fair and just that a decision is communicated to the party whose rights will ultimately be affected or who will be affected by the decision. The knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the party affected by such a decision, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. Thus construed, the making of the award cannot consist merely of the physical act of writing an award or signing it or even filing it in the office of the Collector; it must involve the communication of the said award to the party concerned either actually or constructively. A literal or mechanical way of construin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order", therefore, mean and must be construed as meaning the date of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive, of the order sought to be reviewed." (emphasis supplied) 15. The assessee had challenged the ex parte order dated 18.10.2016 and consequently, keeping in view, the aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the starting point of limitation provided under Section 254 (2) of the Act has to commence from the date of the actual receipt of the judgment and order passed by the ITAT which is sought to be the reviewed 2.3. In view of the above cited order, we are of the considered view that the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Department on 04.07.2024 in respect of the order dated 10.11.2023 of the Tribunal in this case received in the office of the Pr. CIT on 18.01.2024 is within prescribed time limit as provided under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. We, therefore, admit both the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue for adjudication. 3. In this regard, the list of dates relating to this case are as under:- Sr. No. Dates Particulars 1 27.02.2019 A search and seizure operation was conducte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration the above mentioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the conclusion drawn by Hon'ble ITAT that the valuation report submitted by the DVO was barred by time on 30.06.2021 is not correct as decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in M.A No.21 of 2022 has excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for computing the limitation due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is factually incorrect and thus constitutes mistake apparent from record. In this regard, the ld. Sr. DR supported the facts stated in the Miscellaneous Application. 5. The Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal apart from the holding that the proceedings as time barred had also held that even otherwise, in the present Miscellaneous Application, the Department has failed to consider that the Tribunal has given specific findings on Ground no 3, 4 and 6, that the overall variation in valuation is within the permissible limit of 25%, the inappropriate application of CPWD rates instead of State PWD rates, and the binding reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Sunita Mansingh [393 ITR 121]. The ld. AR drew our....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s barred by limitation and, hence, cannot be relied upon by either party in the eyes of law. Consequentially, in our view, no addition per se can be made by the Revenue by placing reliance on an invalid valuation report. 11. The Ld. Counsel has taken alternative plea that the valuation report considered by the CIT(A) cannot be relied upon as the DVO report which has been made on the basis of CPWD rated instead of PWD rates (APB, Pg. 43 para 8.3). The Ld. Counsel in this regard, placed reliance upon the binding judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Mansingha as reported in 393 ITR 121, wherein, it has been held that for the purpose of valuating the property, the local rate should be applied and not CPWD rates and normally, there is difference of about 25% with respect to rate of CPWD and PWD rates. Thus, the addition has been made without providing the benefit of rate difference between CPWD and PWD rate. 12. Considering the factual matrix of the case and judicial pronouncements, we hold that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is infirm and perverse to the facts on record in confirming the addition based on invalid report of DVO and further withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs passed by the ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. While allowing the application under Section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013, it appears that the ITAT has re-heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record only. Therefore, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. While considering the application under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merit....