2018 (8) TMI 1472 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of ITAT order u/s 254(2) - Held that - On being questioned, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be filing an appeal under Section 260-A of the Act challenging order dated 25th August, 2017. We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition against the order dated 20th December, 2017 under Section 254 (2) of the Act, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all contentions and issues in the appeal against the order dated 25th August, 2017. Scope and ambit of interference against an order under Section 254 (2) of the Act is limited and far narrower than in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. Duplication and multiple proceedings are not required and justified. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Recall of earlier order under Section 254(1) of the Act; Allegation of contrary views in different orders; Filing of appeal under Section 260-A challenging previous order; Scope of interference under Section 254(2) compared to Section 260A.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 20th December, 2017, which dismissed their application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the earlier order under Section 254(1) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should have been recalled as certain judgments were not considered, leading to a contradictory view compared to other Coordinate Benches. The impugned order noted that some judgments were not cited during the original hearing, which were later referred to. It specifically mentioned the case law of PHL Pharma and a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Cap Scan Diagnostic Centre Private Limited.

The petitioner expressed intent to file an appeal under Section 260-A of the Act contesting the order dated 25th August, 2017. The High Court clarified that the petitioner could raise all issues and contentions in the upcoming appeal against the said order. The court highlighted that interference under Section 254(2) is limited compared to Section 260A, discouraging duplication of proceedings. The judgment emphasized the importance of avoiding multiple redundant proceedings, citing Order XLVII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for reference.

Ultimately, the High Court declined to entertain the present writ petition against the order dated 20th December, 2017 under Section 254(2) of the Act. The court left it open for the petitioner to address all concerns in the forthcoming appeal against the order dated 25th August, 2017. The dismissal of the writ petition was clarified not to be construed as an adverse order affecting the petitioner's rights in case of an appeal challenging the earlier order. The judgment refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy or the order dated 25th August, 2017.