9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1693 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - mistake apparent from record - HELD THAT - In DR. S. PANNEERSELVAM VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER 2009 (10) TMI 113 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held that the relief which is being sought by the assessee by way of impugned rectification application is not legally tenable for the reason that the Tribunal has no power to adjudicate upon subsequent application filed u/s 254(2). Here it may be the case of the assessee that earlier order against which impugned rectification application is filed is also an order passed on subsequent application then the only course permissible to the assessee is to file an appeal against that order and not to approach the Tribunal to contend that the said order was an invalid order therefore it should be recalled. As per above paras reproduced from this order of Special Bench of Tribunal it is seen that the Tribunal has held that M.P. against M.P. is not maintainable and while holding so the Tribunal has followed various judgments of various Hon ble High Courts such as Hon ble Orissa High Court Hon ble Delhi High Court Hon ble Kerala High Court and Hon ble Madras High Court. In the present case this is not in dispute that the present M.P. filed by the revenue is regarding alleged mistakes in the Tribunal order passed u/s. 254(2) . Hence we hold that the present M.P. of revenue is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal order based on apparent mistakes. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal ITAT BANGALORE dealt with a matter where the revenue filed a Miscellaneous Petition (M.P.) contending apparent mistakes in the Tribunal order dated 24.08.2017 in M.P. No. 178/Bang/2017 related to ITA No. 856/Bang/2016. The revenue argued that the M.P. was not maintainable as it was against an order passed under section 254(2) of the IT Act, citing a Special Bench order in the case of Shri Padam Prakash (HUF) Vs. ITO. The Tribunal noted that the original order was passed under section 254(1) on 16.06.2017, followed by an M.P. by the assessee decided on 24.08.2017. Referring to the Special Bench order, the Tribunal highlighted that M.P. against M.P. is not maintainable, citing judgments from various High Courts. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's M.P. based on the principles established in the Special Bench order and High Court decisions. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement under section 254(2) that a rectification can only be sought for an order passed under section 254(1). Citing precedents, including CIT Vs. President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Mentha & Allied Products Co. Ltd. Vs. ITAT, the Tribunal clarified that the power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record is limited to orders passed under section 254(1). It further referred to cases like CIT Vs. Aiswarya Trading Co. and Dr.S.Panneerselvam Vs. ACIT to support the position that subsequent applications under section 254(2) are not maintainable. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the legal principles established in these cases, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's M.P. challenging the Tribunal order under section 254(2). In conclusion, the Tribunal, following the Special Bench order and various High Court judgments, held that the revenue's M.P. was not maintainable as it was against an order passed under section 254(2) of the IT Act. By aligning with the legal interpretations provided in the cited cases, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's M.P. challenging the Tribunal order dated 24.08.2017. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and judicial precedents in matters of rectification of orders passed by the Tribunal under the IT Act.
|
