Income Tax

Limitation for filing Rectification Application u/s 254(2)starts from the date order is served

Limitation for filing Rectification Application to ITAT u/s 245(2) starts from the date when the order of which rectification is sought, is served upon the Petitioner – Bombay High Court

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that limitation for filing the Rectification Application would start from the date when the order of which rectification is sought, is served upon the Petitioner.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4918 (2025) (12) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the Petitioner/assessee had challenged the order passed by the ITAT in rejecting the Rectification Application filed under Section 254(2) by the Petitioner on the ground that the same was barred by the law of limitation.

The Petitioner had filed the Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the order beyond the period of 6 months from the end of the month in which the ITAT’s order was passed.

With respect to notice from the Registry of the Tribunal that the Application was belated, the Petitioner submitted that since the order was received two months after the ITAT order date, it could not have filed any Application for rectification before receipt of the said order. Therefore, the Application was within time.

However, the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner was rejected as being time barred.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that Rule 34A of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 read with Rule 9 thereof clearly stipulate that every memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by two copies of the order appealed against. Therefore, it was impossible for the Applicant to approach the Tribunal under Section 254(2) without being supplied a copy of the order.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that when one reads these provisions together along with the Rules, it is clear that limitation for filing the Rectification Application would start from the date when the order of which rectification is sought, is served upon the Petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court held that in the instant case, a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) had been filed well within 6 months from the said date.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the above view was supported by two decisions of the Delhi High Court in which it was held that date of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive, of the orders sought to be rectified or amended under section 254(2) of the Act becomes critical and determinative for the commencement of the period of limitation.

The Hon’ble High Court clarified that the ITAT in coming to conclusion relied upon a decision of the High Court which was wholly misplaced. The issue before the Court in the aforesaid decision was not whether limitation would start from the date on which the order was communicated to the assessee. Instead, the contention was that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu Writ Petition, the period from 15th March 2020 to 28th February 2022 ought to be excluded for calculating the limitation for filing an application under Section 254(2).

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that 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.

The Hon’ble High Court however, did not send the Rectification Application back to the ITAT and permitted the Petitioner to canvass all the grounds raised in the Petition pertaining to the merits of the matter in the appeal filed challenging the original order.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Only actual days of services to be considered in computing threshold for constitution of PE

Only days on which actual services rendered by company to be considered in computing threshold for constitution of permanent establishment…

18 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Depreciation on goodwill to amalgamated company upheld as AO took a plausible view

Depreciation on goodwill in the hands of amalgamated company upheld as Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view in line…

20 hours ago
  • ICAI

Applicability of the Income-tax Act, 2025 from May 2027 CA Exams Onwards 

The ICAI has announced that provisions of the Income-tax Act, 2025 shall be applicable to CA exams conducted from 1st…

21 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 deleted for want of cash trail, fund rotation or incriminating evidences

Addition u/s 68 deleted as there was no cash trail, rotation of funds, or incriminating evidences, no enquiry conducted into…

22 hours ago
  • Income Tax

In re-allotment of flat by builder, stamp duty valuation is of the date of booking original flat

In case of re-allotment of flat by builder, stamp duty valuation would be with reference to date of booking of…

23 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Information in loose papers not corroborated with assessee, can’t be said to belong to assessee

When information contained in loose papers not corroborated with assessee, there is absolutely no room for presumption that it belongs…

3 days ago