9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Review and amendment of a previous order under section 254(2) of the IT Act regarding taxability of 'off period salary'. 2. Divergence of opinion between Judicial Member and Accountant Member. 3. Power of the Tribunal under section 254(2) to rectify its order based on subsequent decisions of the High Court. 4. Permissibility of recalling an earlier order under section 254(2) of the Act. 5. Mistake apparent from the record in the order passed under section 254(2) of the Act. Analysis: 1. The case involved a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue under section 254(2) of the IT Act seeking review and amendment of an earlier order regarding the taxability of 'off period salary'. The Revenue argued that a subsequent decision of the jurisdictional High Court necessitated rectification of the previous order. The Tribunal had dismissed the earlier Miscellaneous Application citing lack of consensus among courts on the Tribunal's power under section 254(2) to rectify its order based on subsequent decisions. 2. There was a divergence of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Accountant Member regarding the review and amendment of the previous order. A reference under section 255(4) was made to the Hon'ble President, who held that there was a mistake apparent from the record in the impugned order of the Tribunal, which could be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. 3. The Counsel for the assessee argued that the power under section 254(2) could only be exercised to rectify a mistake apparent from the record and not to review any order made under section 254(1) of the Act. The Counsel further contended that the Tribunal had dismissed the previous Miscellaneous Application as there was no apparent mistake in the order passed for the assessment year 1992-93. 4. The Tribunal considered the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, which held that 'off period salary' was taxable under section 9(1)(ii) of the Act, contrary to the Tribunal's earlier decision. The Revenue filed a second Miscellaneous Application seeking to review and amend the previous order based on the High Court's judgment. However, the Tribunal found that the second Miscellaneous Application was not legally maintainable as it was filed against the order passed under section 254(2) of the Act. 5. The Tribunal emphasized that the order passed by the Third Member (Hon'ble President) might be relevant for considering a mistake apparent from the record in the order passed under section 254(1) of the Act and not in the order passed under section 254(2). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the present Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue as not legally maintainable. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the complexities surrounding the Tribunal's power to rectify orders under section 254(2) of the IT Act and the importance of establishing a mistake apparent from the record for such rectifications.
|
