Tribunal recalled its order in the case of Nutrela Marketing Pvt Ltd v .ITO  ITA No 3910/ Mum/ 2010 dt 10 -01 2018  and placed for hearing . After hearing the Tribunal recalled the earlier order on 1 -02 -2019  . On writ the department contended that miscellaneous application was filed by the assessee on 9 -7 -2018 i.e with in period of six months  however the Tribunal did not dispose the same with in the period of limitation , hence the order passed by the Tribunal is beyond the jurisdiction .  Court held that the initial order passed by the Tribunal on 10thJanuary, 2018 was an ex-parte one for the AY.  2006- 07. The limitation of six months as noticed above was substituted by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 1st June, 2016. Therefore, for the assessment year under consideration the limitation period may be construed to be four years from the date of the order. Even otherwise, if a view is taken that since the  order was passed by the Tribunal on 1st February, 2019, the substituted limitation period of six months would be applicable, then also it is seen that the said period of six months was available to respondent  till 31st July, 2018. Respondent  had filed the application for recall of the ex-parte order on 9th July, 2018 within the limitation period of six months. However, Tribunal passed the impugned order only on 1st February, 2019.  Court also observed that  from a careful reading of the provision, it is seen that Tribunal is vested with the power to rectify any mistake apparent from the record to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, provided the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or by the Assessing Officer. . The use of the expression “may” in the aforesaid provision is clearly indicative of the legislative intent that the limitation period of six months from the end of  the month in which the order was passed is not to be construed in such a manner that there can not be any extension of time beyond the said period of six months. This is so because the assessee or the Assessing Officer can only bring the mistake to the notice of the Tribunal. The assessee or the Assessing Officer has no control over the Tribunal. For one reason or the other, the Tribunal may not be in a position to pass the order under Section 254(2). For the inability of the Tribunal to pass such an order within the period provided, neither the assessee nor the revenue should suffer. What therefore becomes relevant is that the assessee or the Assessing Officer should bring the mistake to the notice of the Tribunal within the limitation period.  (Referred   Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd  v. Tuff Drilling Private Limited, (2018)11 SCC 470. Grindlays Bank Ltd. v.. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 1980 Supp SCC 420 , Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, (2005) 13 SCC 777 ,Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd  v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 434 SC , Harshavardhan Chemicals and Minerals Limited v . UOI (.2002) 256 ITR 767  (Raj) (HC) , Assam Company Ltd. v . State of Assam ( 2001)  248 ITR 567 (SC)   ) (MA No.483/M/2018 dt .1-02 2019  (AY.2006 -07)  (WP NO.2858 of  2019 dt 24-01 2020  )