9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 signed by the departmental representative instead of the Assessing Officer. Analysis: The petitioner, the Commissioner of Income-tax, challenged the stand of the first respondent, as reflected in exhibit P-2 order, that a rectification application under section 254(2) should be signed by the Assessing Officer. The departmental representative filed the application seeking rectification, which was objected to by the assessee on the grounds of incorrect signatory. The Tribunal dismissed the application, leading to the filing of this writ petition challenging the dismissal orders P-2 and P-4. The petitioner contended that the authorised representative is competent to appear before any authority, as defined under the Income-tax Act. The petitioner argued that section 254(2) does not require an application from any aggrieved party but empowers the Tribunal to correct any mistakes in its order. Additionally, the petitioner cited a case from the Madras High Court to support the validity of applications signed by representatives. The petitioner sought to quash exhibits P-2 and P-4 based on these arguments. The court considered the definition of an authorised representative and the scope of section 254(2) in rectifying mistakes in orders. The court noted that the power under section 254(2) is not dependent on the validity of the application submitted by the party concerned. Even if an application is defective, if it discloses relevant matters under section 254(2), the Tribunal is obligated to exercise its power to rectify mistakes. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction to correct apparent mistakes is a duty coupled with the power to act when necessary conditions are met. Therefore, the court held that the Tribunal must exercise its power under section 254(2) if the jurisdictional pre-conditions are present, regardless of the validity of the application. Consequently, the court quashed exhibits P-2 and P-4 and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on whether to exercise its power under section 254(2) in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the court's judgment clarified that the validity of a rectification application under section 254(2) is not contingent upon the signatory being the Assessing Officer. The court underscored the Tribunal's duty to rectify mistakes in its orders, irrespective of the party submitting the application, as long as the jurisdictional pre-conditions are satisfied. The judgment emphasized the enabling nature of the power under section 254(2) and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the rectification application without delay.
|
