TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the bench on account of low tax effect in terms of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. In the application, it has been submitted that the tax effect involved is much more than stipulated monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lacs and accordingly, revenue plead for recall of order for adjudication on merits. 2. The registry has noted a delay of 5 days in the appeal. The Ld. AR, drawing attention to the statutory provisions of Sec. 254(2), submitted that the application was to be preferred within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. The Ld. AR submitted that the period of four years as stipulated earlier has been substituted with a period of six months w.e.f. 01.06.2016 and the order under consideration has been pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... controversy has been resolved by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in its decision titled as Anil Kumar Nevatia V/s ITO (125 Taxmann.com 169; 23.12.2020) wherein Hon'ble Court has accepted later view that the limitation period was to be counted with reference to receipt of order by the applicant. The relevant observations as well as adjudication of Hon'ble Court were as under: - 5. The assessee impugns the said order of the Tribunal suggesting that the date of order is not relevant for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and it should be the date on which the order was served upon the assessee by the Tribunal. The assessee by placing heavy reliance upon the judgment D. Saibaba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ints out that the judgment in D. Saibaba (supra) was applied by Gujarat High Court in a case Peterplast Synthetics (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 302/364 ITR 16 to the provision of 254 (2) of the said Act. It was held in the said judgment that the limitation period for an application for rectification of the order under section 254(2) should be counted from the date of actual receipt of the order but not from the date of order. 9. According to the assessee, since the order of the Tribunal was served upon the assessee only on December 05, 2018, the application for rectification was within the time and the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the said application on the ground of limitation. 10. It is the conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rescribed for an appeal or an application under this Act, the day on which the order complained of was served and, if the assessee was not furnished with a copy of the order when the notice of the order was served upon him, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of such order, shall be excluded." 14. The said section has replaced Section 67-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The said section provided as follows:- "Section 67A. Computation of periods of limitation. -In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal under this Act or for an application under section 66, the day on which the order complained of was made, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of such order, shall be excluded." 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on which the order was served". Such interpretation is absolutely uncalled for when the application has been served upon an assessee in terms of section 254(3) of the Act. 19. Since it is not necessary to interpret Section 254(2) differently to avoid hardship or absurdity or uncertainty, the judgment in D. Saibaba case has no applicability to the present case. 20. The controversy with regard to whether pronouncement of a judgment in open court amounts to communication of the order is much ado about nothing since the order complained of in this case was served upon the assessee in terms of section 254(3) of the Act. 21. We are not inclined to agree with the reasoning of Peterplast Synthetics (P.) Ltd. (supra) since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal which is sought to be reviewed. This decision has subsequently been followed by Mumbai Tribunal in Techknoweledgy Interactive Partners P. Ltd. V/s ITO (130 Taxmann.com 194) to recall the ex-parte order. 6. Another decision referred before is the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in S.P. Balasubrahmanyam V/s ACIT (75 Taxmann.com 56). Upon perusal of the same, we find that the same has been rendered in the context of pre-amended provisions and Hon'ble Court has dismissed assessee's appeal on the ground that the rectification application was filed after the prescribed period and the same was bereft of any details as to when the order was served and where the office of assessee was situated. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed....