- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31568 WP No. 11834 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 11834 OF 2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.DILIP, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURVEY NO.34 OF 1, BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED SEZ, 4TH FLOOR, BUILDING ’AMBER’, BAGMANE WORLD TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, SEZ, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 037, PAN NO.AACCB 449ON REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER. …RESPONDENT (BY MISS. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31568 WP No. 11834 of 2019 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 13.09.2017 IN M.P.NOs.123 AND 124/BANG/2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNX-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being aggrieved by an order dated 13.09.2017 passed in M.P.Nos.123 & 124/B/2017, are before this Court: "These miscellaneous petitions are preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.331/Bang/2015 and IT(TP)A No.167/Bang/2015 dated 21.10.2016, pointing out that certain grounds relating to exclusion of certain comparables were not adjudicated by the Tribunal. Therefore these grounds are required to be adjudicated afresh. The learned counsel for the assessee objected the maintainability of the miscellaneous petitions on the ground that miscellaneous petitions are barred by time as it was filed after a period of 6 months from the end of the month in which the order is passed. Therefore the same are barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the assessee further contended that these appeals were disposed off vide order dated 21.10.2016. Therefore the period of limitation starts from the end of the month in which the order is passed i.e., 31.10.2016. As per provisions of section 254(2), the miscellaneous petition is to be filed within a period of 6 months from the end of the month in which the order is passed and since these miscellaneous - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31568 WP No. 11834 of 2019 petitions are filed on 14.06.2017, these miscellaneous applications are barred by limitation. The miscellaneous petitions were required to be filed before 30.04.2016, but it was filed on 14.06.2017. 2 In oppugnation, the learned DR contended that the limitation is to start from the date of receipt of the order and not from the end of the month in which the order is pronounced. Since the order might have been received by the Revenue in the month of December, these miscellaneous petitions are within a period of limitation. 3. Having heard the rival submissions and from the careful perusal of the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, we find that undisputedly the period of limitation for filing the miscellaneous application is 6 months from the end of the month in which the order of the Tribunal is passed under section 254(1) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 254 is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference. "254 (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. (1A) 48 [***] (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within 48a[six month from the end of the month in which the order was passed], with a view to rectifying 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 to its notice by the assessee or the [Assessing] Officer". 4. In the instant case, the Tribunal had disposed off the appeal vide order dated 21.10.2016. Therefore the period of limitation has to be started from the end of the month i.e., 31.10.2016. The period of limitation of 6 months accordingly ends on 30.04.2016 but the miscellaneous petitions are filed on 14.06.2017 i.e., beyond the period of limitation. Since there is no provision under section 254(2) for condonation of delay in filing miscellaneous application, we have no option but to dismiss the miscellaneous petition being not admitted as the same are being barred by limitation. Since the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31568 WP No. 11834 of 2019 miscellaneous petitions are dismissed being not admitted, we find no justification to deal the miscellaneous application on merit. Accordingly, miscellaneously applications are dismissed. 5. In the result, miscellaneous petitions of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th September, 2017." 2. Heard Sri.M.Dilip, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Miss.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. 3. The issue is from what date the period of 6 months should be reckoned for preferring a Miscellaneous Petition before the Tribunal or Appellate Authority. 4. The concerned Court by the impugned order has rejected the case of the Revenue on the score that the Miscellaneous Petition is preferred beyond 6 months and it is not entertainable in terms of Section 254(2) of the Act: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31568 WP No. 11834 of 2019 5. Learned Counsel Sri.Dilip M appearing for the Revenue would submit that the order though was passed on 31.10.2016 was communicated to the parties only on 02.01.2017, as could be gathered from the seal affixed on the appeal. 6. Therefore, it can be safely considered that the communication of the order so passed on 31.10.2016 has happened only on 02.01.2017. If the Revenue or the person against whom the order is passed has to prefer a Miscellaneous Petition within 6 months, it cannot be without knowing what the order is passed. It can ostensibly be only from the date on which the order is communicated. Admittedly, the order in the case at hand is communicated on 02.01.2017. Therefore, the order is communicated only on 02.01.2017. The period of 6 months would kick in only from the date on which the order is communicated, as without knowing the order, no person can prefer a Miscellaneous Petition or an appeal as the case would be. In the case at hand, it is the Revenue preferring the Miscellaneous Petition within 6 months from the date of communication of the order, but not 6 months from the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31568 WP No. 11834 of 2019 passage of the order. The passage of the order is on 31.10.2016, the communication of which was made on 02.01.2017. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Petition that was preferred, was well within time, as it was filed within 6 months from the date of communication of the order i.e., on 02.01.2017. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reason, the following: ORDER [i] The petition is allowed. [ii] Order of the Tribunal rejecting the M.P.Nos.123 and 124/BANG/2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Bengaluru, vide Annexure-D, is rendered unsustainable, the unsustainability of which would lead to its obliteration. [iii] The order in M.P.Nos.123 and 124/BANG/2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Bengaluru, vide Annexure-D, stands quashed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31568 WP No. 11834 of 2019 [iv] The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the Miscellaneous Petitions on its merit and pass necessary orders in accordance with law thereon. [v] All contentions of both the parties shall remain open. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48 CT:SS