Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur

Ito, Jaipur vs Shri Khetilal Sharma Huf, Jaipur on 10 April, 2018

              vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

                  vk;dj vihy la-@MA No.36/JP/2018
                   (Arising out of ITA No. 103/JP/2012)
                 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2006-07

Income Tax Officer,                    cuke   Sh. Kheti Lal Sharma, HUF,
Ward-7(2), Jaipur                      Vs.    Village- Sarangpura, Tehsil-
                                              Sanganer, Jaipur

LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHHK 3191 D
vihykFkhZ@Appellant                           izR;FkhZ@Respondent

       jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Seema Meena (JCIT)
         fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
                             s Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)

          lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 06/04/2018
       mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/04/2018

                              vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. The Revenue has moved the present misc. application against the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 103/JP/2012 dated 18.03.2016.

2. In its petition, the Revenue has submitted that the Tribunal has taken the municipal limit of Jaipur Municipality up to ESI Hospital on Ajmer Road, Jaipur while as on 25.09.1994 as per notification of Rajasthan Government, the municipal limit was up to the village of Girdharipura, Heerapura and Gajsinghpura which is more than 8-9 Km 2 M.A. No. 36/JP/2018 ITO, Jaipur Vs. Sh. Kheti Lal Sharma, Jaipur far from ESI Hospital, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. It was accordingly submitted that there is a mistake which has crept in the order of the Tribunal which is apparent from record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act and the same requires necessary modification.

3. At the outset, it was observed that the misc. application has been filed by the Revenue on 12.03.2018. As per section 254(2), the misc. application can be filed within 6 months of end of the month in which the order of the Tribunal was passed. In the instant case, the order of the Tribunal was passed on 18.03.2016 and the misc. application has been filed on 12.3.2018 which is clearly barred by limitation as provided in section 254(2) of the Act. Even if we consider the fact that the order of the Tribunal was passed on 18.03.2016 and the provisions of section 254(2) has been amended with effect from 1.6.2016, the six months limitation expires on 30th November 2016. It is not the case of Revenue that the order of the Tribunal was not received. Further, it may be noted that no power or for that matter, any discretion has been conferred statutorily on the Tribunal to condone any delay and admit application u/s 254(2) of the Act unlike the provisions of section 253(5) of the Act.

4. In light of above discussions, the present misc. application filed by the Revenue beyond the prescribed period cannot be entertained and is hereby dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/04/2018.

ITO, Jaipur Vs. Sh. Kheti Lal Sharma, Jaipur Sd/- Sd/-

        ¼fot; ikWy jko½                             ¼foØe flag ;kno½
       (Vijay Pal Rao)                          (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member               ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 10/04/2018.
*Ganesh Kr

vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Income Tax Officer,Ward-7(2), Jaipur

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Sh. Kheti Lal Sharma, Jaipur

3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT

4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur.

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { M.A. No. 36/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar