Case Details: Accost Media LLP vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 181 taxmann.com 298 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- B. P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ.
-
P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Counsel & Gunjan Kakkad, Adv. for the Petitioner.
-
Arjun Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, Accost Media LLP, filed a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10-12-2024. The said order was received by the assessee on 24-3-2025, and the rectification application was filed on 16-7-2025.
The Registry of the Tribunal issued a notice stating that the rectification application was barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal’s order was passed. The assessee explained that the application could not have been filed before the order was received and was therefore within the prescribed time limit. However, the Tribunal rejected the rectification application as time-barred by order dated 13-10-2025.
Aggrieved, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of the rectification application. The High Court examined section 254(2), read with rule 34A and rule 9 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and observed that a rectification application cannot be filed without being served with a copy of the order sought to be rectified.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the period of limitation for filing a rectification application under section 254(2) commences from the date of communication of the Tribunal’s order and not from the date on which the order is passed. Since the assessee had filed the rectification application within six months from the date of receipt of the order, the Tribunal had misdirected itself in treating the application as time-barred.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the rectification application was filed within time and quashed the Tribunal’s order rejecting the application as barred by limitation, while permitting the assessee to raise all contentions on merits in the appeal filed against the original Tribunal order.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Golden Times Services (P) Ltd V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2020] 113 taxmann.com 524 (Delhi)/[2020] 271 Taxman 123 (Delhi)/[2020] 422 ITR 102 (Delhi)
- Pacific Projects Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2021] 125 taxmann.com 94/[2021] 278 Taxman 396 (Delhi)/[2021] 430 ITR 522 (Delhi) (para 5) followed
- Leena Power Tech Engineers (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2025] 172 taxmann.com 424/304 Taxman 392 (Bombay) (para 8) distinguished
List of Cases Referred to
- Pacific Projects Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2021] 125 taxmann.com 94/[2021] 278 Taxman 396/[2021] 430 ITR 522 (Delhi) (para 5)
- Golden Times Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 524/[2020] 271 Taxman 123/[2020] 422 ITR 102 (Delhi) (para 5)
- Leena Power Tech Engineers (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2025] 172 taxmann.com 424 (Bombay)/[2025] 304 Taxman 392 (Bombay) (para 8)
- Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307/441 ITR 722 (SC) (para 8).
The post ITAT Rectification Limitation Runs From Order Receipt Date | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
