2013 (5) TMI 385 - AT - Income Tax

Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) - Jurisdiction of the AO was challenged by the assesse to frame assessment u/s 158BC Held that - Two necessary conditions must be satisfied for taking recourse to the provisions of section 254(2). First, there should be some mistake in the order of the Tribunal and the second such mistake should be apparent from record. Adverting to the facts of the Miscellaneous Application, I find that both of these two conditions are lacking. There is no mistake in the tribunal order much less an apparent mistake requiring any rectification. Miscellaneous Application cannot be allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to pass order u/s 158BC.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass an order under section 158BC. The case originated from a search action under section 132, resulting in an addition of Rs.11 lakh based on incriminating documents. Initially, the Tribunal approved this addition under section 254(1). Subsequently, the assessee filed multiple Miscellaneous Applications, with conflicting opinions from the Members. A Third Member's opinion upheld the addition, which was confirmed by a Division Bench order. The current Miscellaneous Application raised a new ground challenging the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction under section 158BC.

The judge highlighted three main reasons for rejecting the Miscellaneous Application. Firstly, the opinion of the Third Member merged with the Division Bench order, precluding the possibility of filing further applications against it. Secondly, since this was the third Miscellaneous Application on the same issue, the judge emphasized that once a view is taken and the first application rejected, subsequent applications cannot be entertained. Lastly, the judge emphasized that the assessee cannot introduce a new issue challenging the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction through a Miscellaneous Application. The scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectifying apparent mistakes in the Tribunal's order, which was not the case here. The judge concluded that the proceedings had attained finality, and introducing a new ground at this stage was impermissible.

In conclusion, the judge dismissed the Miscellaneous Application based on the three independent reasons outlined in the analysis. The judgment underscores the limitations on raising new issues through Miscellaneous Applications after the finality of proceedings and the importance of adhering to the scope of rectification under section 254(2).