9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 809 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Block Assessment - plea for rectification of mistake - Held that - As decided in ITAT Versus V. K. Agarwal And Another 1998 (11) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT in accordance with section 254(1) is only when order bears the signature of both the Members and communicated to the parties. The rule 34 of ITAT Rules 1963 also provides that the order of Bench shall be in writing and shall be signed and dated by the Members constituting the Bench. Thus in the light of above law laid the so-called claim by the assessee that order has been pronounced in the open Court is not the order of I.T.A.T. under section 254(1) of the Act. When there is no order of I.T.A.T. in accordance with law under section 254(1), there is no question of amending the order under section 254(2). That according to rule 34(4) the orders are to be pronounced in the Court but on perusal of records, it is noticed that there is no such pronouncement, rather the case/appeal was kept for order as per the order sheet dated 6.10.2008. Also that for such pronouncement in the open Court, the rules (4) & (5) of rule 34 of has been inserted by the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) (Amendment) Rules 2009 w.e.f. 01.05.2009. In the light of the facts, the contention of the assessee is rejected as such are not mistakes which are rectifiable under section 254(2). The contention raised in the Miscellaneous Application itself shows that the assessee wants a second order after recalling the original order. The I.T.A.T. has no power to review its earlier order. The power under section 254(2) is only to amend the order with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from record. The so-called mistakes pointed out in the Miscellaneous Application discussed above are not mistake apparent on record. Therefore, the same is not covered under section 254(2) - against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Block Assessment Order. 2. Applicability of Section 158BD. 3. Whether the Tribunal's order contained mistakes apparent from the record that could be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Block Assessment Order: The assessee contended that the Tribunal's order dated 23.01.2009 was at variance from the pronouncement made in open court regarding the validity of the Block Assessment Order dated 30.01.2001 under Section 158BC. The Tribunal had upheld the validity of the block assessment order despite the CIT(A) finding that there was no "warrant of authorization for requisition under Section 132A" in the name of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on case laws such as Chatturam v. CIT, CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh, Kendarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT, and CIT v. Shelly Products and Another, which the assessee argued were not applicable to the facts of their case and violated the rule of "following the precedence" as laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works. 2. Applicability of Section 158BD: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view on the applicability of Section 158BD without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The assessee argued that this decision conflicted with the Supreme Court's decision in Manish Maheshwari v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, which outlined the conditions precedent for invoking Section 158BD. The assessee emphasized that the Additional Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Calcutta, who initiated the proceedings, did not hold jurisdiction as the "Assessing Officer" in the case of Neel Kamal Courier Services, thus violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 3. Rectification of Mistakes under Section 254(2): The Tribunal examined whether the mistakes pointed out by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application could be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and High Courts, which clarified that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake, not something that requires a long process of reasoning or debate. The Tribunal concluded that the so-called mistakes pointed out by the assessee were not mistakes apparent from the record but rather amounted to a request for re-hearing and review of the original order, which is beyond the scope of Section 254(2). Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, holding that: - The alleged mistakes were not apparent from the record and did not fall within the scope of Section 254(2). - The Tribunal does not have the power to review its own orders under the guise of rectification. - The original order of the Tribunal, signed and communicated as per the rules, stands final and cannot be amended based on the contentions raised in the Miscellaneous Application.
|
