Deen Dayal Medical And Educational Trust, Thiruvallur v. Addl. Cit, Chennai

By means of present Miscellaneous Petition, the assessee seeks to recall the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.3331/Mds/2016 dated 31.01.2017.

2. At the outset, as per the present practice followed by the Tribunal, the appeal order pronounced in the open court and the time limit for filing of Miscellaneous Petition shall be reckoned from the end of the month in which the order was passed, is six months for seeking recall i.e., parties are entitled to M.P. No. 19/Chny/2018 2 seek rectification of the said order within six months under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended w.e.f. 01.06.2016 which reads as under:-  254 (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within  six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed , with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or as the Assessing Officer.

3. The abovementioned provision empowers the Tribunal to suo moto rectify its mistake or enable the parties to the order to seek rectification within the period of limitation i.e.,  Six months in which the order was passed . In the instant case, the order was passed/ pronounced on 31.01.2017 and from the end month, the period of six month expires on 31.07.2017. Assessee filed the present Miscellaneous Petition on 16.01.2018 recalling the order of the Tribunal, which was decided on merits on the appeal filed by the Revenue since there was no representation from assessee s side.

4. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the procedures as well as the period of limitation set out in the are mainly intended to subserve the interest of the parties and in tax matters, it cannot be considered as it lies between in two parties but only tax adjustment. Substantial justice has to be given in this case, since the Tribunal has no occasion to consider the submissions of the assessee and prayed for recalling the exparte order passed by the Tribunal dated 31.01.2017. M.P. No. 19/Chny/2018 3

5. Per contra, ld. DR submitted that Miscellaneous Petition was filed much after the time limit specified in Section 254(2) of theand pleaded that the plea of the assessee cannot be entertained in view of the statute.

6. We have heard rival contentions. In the petition, the assessee has very well accepted that the Tribunal has given three opportunities. It is an admitted fact that, despite service of notice, the assessee did not come forward to put his appearance on the date of hearing fixed in this case. Since the assessee filed the present petition on 16.01.2018, which is clearly beyond the time limit allowed under the, we are of the considered opinion that the petition filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition filed by the assessee is dismissed.

7. In the result, the MP filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on the 13 th April, 2018 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, the 13.04.2018 Vm/- &G6  $ 2 *  G 7$/Copy to: 1. *@2>% /Appellant, 2. /% / Respondent, 3. /0 /A $ (*@2 )/CIT(A), 4. /0 /A $/CIT,

5. 5->@/ $ ( /DR & 6. >! +>2/GF.