The limitation for filing a rectification application under Section 254(2) commences from the date the order is served upon the aggrieved party, not from the date the order is passed.

JUDGMENT :

B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.

1. The above Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 13^th October 2025 passed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Mr. Pardiwalla, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order rejecting the Rectification Application [filed under Section 254(2)] by the Petitioner, was mainly on the ground that the same was barred by the law of limitation. According to Mr. Pardiwalla, in the facts of the present case, the ITAT’s order of which rectification was sought, is dated 10^th December 2024. The said order was received by the Petitioner on 24^th March 2025. Accordingly, the Petitioner, on 16^th July 2025, filed the Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the order dated 10^th December 2024. Since the Miscellaneous Application was filed beyond the period of 6 months from the end of the month in which the ITAT’s order was passed (10^th December 2024), the Petitioner received a notice from the Registry of the Tribunal that the Application is belated by 15 days. In reply to this notice, the Petitioner, on 9^th September 2025, explained why the Application was not belated. In short, it was the case of the Petitioner that since the order was received only on 24^th March 2025, they could not have filed any Application for rectification before receipt of the said order. Therefore, the Application was within time. Be that as it may, on 13^th October 2025 the impugned order was passed and the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner was rejected as being time barred.

3. As far as the limitation issue is concerned, Mr. Pardiwalla, in our opinion, correctly placed reliance on Rule 34A of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 read with Rule 9 thereof. Rule 34A deals with Applications filed under Section 254(2). Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 34A clearly stipulates that every application made under sub-rule (1) shall be in triplicate and the procedure for filing of Appeals in these rules will apply mutatis mutandis to such applications. Correspondingly, Rule 9 which deals with filing of Appeals, clearly stipulates [Rule 9(1)] that every memorandum of appeal shall be in triplicate and shall be accompanied by two copies (at least one of which shall be a certified copy) of the order appealed against, two copies of the order of the Income tax Officer, two copies of the grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority, and two copies of the statement of facts, if any, filed before the said appellate authority.

4. In other words, when Rule 34A is read with Rule 9, it is clear that along with the Application for rectification filed under Section 254(2), the Applicant has to furnish 2 copies of the order, atleast one of which is a certified copy. It is impossible for the Applicant to approach the Tribunal under Section 254(2) without being supplied a copy of the order. Once this is the case, it can hardly be contended that the Application filed by the Petitioner was time barred. We say this because in the facts of the present case, a copy of the order was furnished only on 24^th March 2025 and the Miscellaneous Application [under Section 254(2)] has been filed well within 6 months from the said date. We are mindful of the fact that Section 254(2) stipulates that the Appellate Tribunal may at any time within 6 months from the end of the month in which the order is 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 t