TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal in ITA No.648 to 651/Mum/2004 relating to AY 1996-97 and 1997-98. The first two appeals are related to quantum proceedings and the remaining two appeals are related to penalty proceedings. 2. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, all these appeals were disposed of ex-parte by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 2nd November, 2006. Subsequently, the assessee filed miscellaneous applications seeking recall of the order and they were also dismissed for want of prosecution. Hence the assessee has filed these miscellaneous applications seeking recall of the ex-parte common order dated 2nd November, 2006 passed in the above said four appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee has submitted in its written submissions that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Private Limited vs. ITO (M.P No.121/Bang/2020) 5. We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The moot question is whether these miscellaneous applications filed after almost 15 years could be recalled by the Tribunal. The provisions of sec.254(2) earlier prescribed a limit of four years from the date of the order for recalling the order passed by the Tribunal. The said time limit was reduced to six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed by an amendment made by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f 1-06-2016. However, it is the contention of Ld A.R that the impugned order of the Tribunal is sought to be recalled under Rule 24 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and the said rule does not prescribed any time limit. 6. We have perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Tribunal Rules. The relevant portion of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court is reproduced herein below:- "Learned counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon the Court that the period mentioned in Section 254(2) of the Act only applied when the Tribunal notices the error and decides to proceed ahead to rectify it and per se does not indicate any limitation within which the aggrieved party (assessee or Revenue) can approach it. He relied upon the judgments of the Allahabad High Court titled Vijay Kumar Ruia v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2011] 15 taxmann.com (Allahabad) and Gujarat High Court titled Liladhar T Khushlani Vs. Commissioner of Customs Tax Appeal No. 915 of 2016 delivered on 25.01.2017 for this pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, referred supra:- (a) the Kolkatta bench of Tribunal in the case of Arati Engineering & Construction Co. (MA No. 82/Kol/2018 dated 29-8-2018) (b) the Bangalore bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s Mini Life Sciences P Ltd vs. ITO (M P No. 121/Bang/2020 dated 18.12.2020) (c) the Ahmedabad bench of Tribunal in the case of Smt Manjulaben C Tomar vs. ITO (MA No. 238/Ahd/2019 dated 21-04-2022) 9. In the instant case, it is the submission of the assessee that she has not received the notice of hearing scheduled on 31.10.2006. Considering the facts of the case and the status of the assessee, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause for the assessee ....