TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order rejecting the Rectification Application [filed under Section 254(2)] by the Petitioner, was mainly on the ground that the same was barred by the law of limitation. According to Mr. Pardiwalla, in the facts of the present case, the ITAT's order of which rectification was sought, is dated 10th December 2024. The said order was received by the Petitioner on 24th March 2025. Accordingly, the Petitioner, on 16th July 2025, filed the Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the order dated 10th December 2024. Since the Miscellaneous Application was filed beyond the period of 6 months from the end of the month in which the ITAT's order was passed (10th December 2024), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wo copies of the statement of facts, if any, filed before the said appellate authority. 4. In other words, when Rule 34A is read with Rule 9, it is clear that along with the Application for rectification filed under Section 254(2), the Applicant has to furnish 2 copies of the order, atleast one of which is a certified copy. It is impossible for the Applicant to approach the Tribunal under Section 254(2) without being supplied a copy of the order. Once this is the case, it can hardly be contended that the Application filed by the Petitioner was time barred. We say this because in the facts of the present case, a copy of the order was furnished only on 24th March 2025 and the Miscellaneous Application [under Section 254(2)] has been filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be the relevant date for the purpose of commencement of period of limitation. To hold the date of the order to be the relevant date for the purpose of calculating the period of six months envisaged under section 254(2) of the Act, can lead to several absurd and anomalous situations. An order passed without the knowledge of the aggrieved party, would render the remedy against the order meaningless as the same would be lost by limitation while the person aggrieved would not even know that an order has been passed. Such an interpretation would not advance the cause of justice and would not be the correct approach and thus cannot be countenanced. A person who is aggrieved or concerned with an order would legitimately be expected to exercise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 254(2) of the Act refers to suo moto exercise of the power of rectification by the ITAT whereas the second part refers to rectification and amendment on an application being made by the assessing officer or the assessee pointing out the mistake apparent from the record. 12. As noted above, section 254(2) of the Act has undergone certain amendments. However, there is no dispute that the provision still retains the distinctive two parts as observed by the Supreme Court in the above noted case. We are presently concerned with a scenario under Section 254(2) of the Act where the assessee has invoked its jurisdiction seeking rectification/amendment of the order passed by the ITAT. In this situation, the assessee has claimed that it did....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applied its mind on this aspect and has been swayed by the literal and mechanical construction of the words "six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed". The ITAT failed to even delve into the question whether the affected party, either actually or constructively, was in knowledge of the order passed by the ITAT." (emphasis supplied) 6. In fact in the case of Pacific Projects Ltd (supra), the Delhi High Court, by following its decision in Golden Times Services (P) Ltd (supra), held as under: "7. This Court is also of the view that the ITAT has erroneously concluded that the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation under section 254(2) of the Act inasmuch as the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g rectification expired on 31st May 2022. There was no argument canvassed in this matter, and nor was it the assessee's case that its Miscellaneous Application is filed within time from the date of communication of the order sought to be rectified. Hence the reliance placed on this decision by the ITAT was wholly misplaced. 9. For all these reasons, we are clearly of the view that the ITAT misdirected itself when it held that the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner was barred by the law of limitation. It was clearly filed within time. 10. Having said so, one still has to examine whether this Writ Petition ought to be entertained and the matter be remanded back to the ITAT to hear the Rectification Application afresh. Hav....