1998 (7) TMI 110 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the application filed under s. 254(2) of the Act by the senior Departmental Representative.

Analysis:

The judgment revolves around a miscellaneous application filed by the Senior Authorised Representative of the IT Department before the Appellate Tribunal. The application sought to withdraw the Tribunal's order and reconsider the submissions made. The case involved an assessee and two other group concerns searched by the Department, which made disclosures under s. 132(4) of the Act. The assessee requested the AO to adjust excess advance tax paid by the other concerns against its self-assessment tax under s. 140A, supported by no-objection certificates. The AO did not accept this request, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A) and subsequently the Tribunal. The CIT(A) held in favor of the assessee, which was upheld by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Revenue.

The main contention in the application for rectification was that the Tribunal's order was based on a misconception of facts and the argument of the junior Departmental Representative was not properly considered. The Departmental Representative argued for the order to be recalled for fresh consideration. However, the Tribunal found that the application was not maintainable as it was filed by the Departmental Representative and not the AO as required by s. 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized the specific powers granted to either the assessee or the AO to file such applications and the requirement to send a copy of the order to the CIT under s. 254(3) of the Act. Since the AO had not instructed the Departmental Representative to file the application, the Tribunal held the application to be not maintainable and rejected it.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application on the grounds of maintainability, as it was filed by the Senior Departmental Representative and not the AO as required by the relevant provisions of the Act. The judgment highlighted the specific authorities designated for filing applications under s. 254(2) and 256(1) of the Act on behalf of the Revenue, emphasizing the procedural requirements set by the legislation. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of authorization from the AO for filing the application, leading to its rejection without delving into the merits of the case.