Sardar Bhavan Trust, Baroda v. The CIT-III,, Baroda

MA 34/AHD/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3420524 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABTS2068P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 34/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Sardar Bhavan Trust, Baroda
Respondent The CIT-III,, Baroda
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 25-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 25-03-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 22-02-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' BEFORE SHRI T K SHARMA JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA AM M A NO.34/AHD/2010 [IN ITA NO.2427/AHD/2005] SARDAR BHUVAN TRUST SARDAR BHAVAN NEAR JUBELIBAUG GARDEN VADODARA V/S COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX-III INCOME-TAX OFFICE RACE COURSE CIRCLE VADODARA PAN: AABTS 2068 P [APPLICANT] [ORIGINAL APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] [ORIGINAL RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SHRI SURESH THAKKAR AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI R K DHANESTA DR O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS MISC. APPLICATION[MA] HAS BEEN FILED ON 22. 2.2010 AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 27-1-2006 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2427/AHD/2005 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT GRANTING REGISTRATION U/S 12AA(1)(B)(I) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT 1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 . 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRUST SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TRUST WAS EARLIER REGISTE RED U/S 12A(A) OF THE ACT ORDER OF CIT-III VADODARA DATED 24.10.20 05 NEEDS TO BE CANCELLED AS NO SECOND ORDER NEED TO BE PASSED FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST U/S 12A(A) REGISTRATION OF THE TRUST BEI NG ONE TIME AFFAIR. ACCORDINGLY THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO PASS NECESS ARY ORDERS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 24.10.05 OF THE CI T-III VADODARA. 3. THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY R EITERATED WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THE MA WHILE THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE MA. TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH THE LD. AR ADMITTED THAT THE MA WAS FILED ONLY ON 22.2.2010 WHILE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS PRONOUNCED ON 27.1.2006. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. INDISPUTABLY IN THE INSTANT CASE . ORDER OF THE IT AT IS DATED 27.1.2006 WHILE THE MA N O.34/AHD/2010 2 MA HAS BEEN FILED ON 22.2.2010 I.E BEYOND FOUR YEAR S FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT S. 254(2) OF THE ACT PROV IDES LIMITATION OF 4 YEARS FOR FILING AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF ORDER FROM THE DATE OF ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. THUS MA HAS TO BE MADE BY AN AGGRIEVED PARTY SEEKING A RECTIFICATION WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPLICANT BEF ORE US DID NOT FILE THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION WITHIN FOUR YEARS FRO M THE DATE OF ORDER. IN THIS CONTEXT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF LIMITATION LIKE ANY OTHER PROVISIONS MUST RECEIVE A CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE LA NGUAGE ON ITS PLAIN MEANING IMPORTS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B RITISH INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. CAPTAIN ITBAR SINGH AIR 1959 SC 1331 HELD THAT THE COURTS CANNOT ADD WORDS TO SECTION UNLESS THE PROVISIONS O F THE SECTION IN ITSELF ARE MEANINGLESS OR OF DOUBTFUL MEANING. SECTION 254(2) IN OUR OPINION IS NEITHER MEANINGLESS NOR OF A DOUBTFUL MEANING. MOREOVER TH E LAW OF LIMITATION VESTS A RIGHT IN A PARTY AND IF THE LIMITATION EXPIRES A VESTED RIGHT ACCRUES TO THE OTHER PARTY AND THAT RIGHT CANNOT BE EASILY TAMPERED WITH . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CONDONAT ION OF DELAY IN FILING SUCH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOR ANY SUCH APPLICATION WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND RIGHTLY SO WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO REJECT THE MA FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE ITAT . THIS VIEW OF OURS IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS IN AJIT KUMAR PITALIYA VS. ITO 215 CTR 533(MP) A. S. CHINNASWAMY RAJU (HUF). VS ASSIS TANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION) 300 ITR 96(KAR) ARVINDBH AI H. SHAH. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 91 ITD 101(AHMEDABAD SP ECIAL BENCH). 6. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION MA IS R EJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 25-03-2011 SD/- SD/- (T.K.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 25-03-2011 MA N O.34/AHD/2010 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SARDAR BHUVAN TRUST SARDAR BHAVAN NR. JUBILEBA UG GARDEN VADODARA 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-III INCOME-TAX OFFIC E RACE COURSE CIRCLE VADODARA 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. DR ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH-C AHMEDABAD 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD