9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Application to recall orders passed in stay petitions - Allegations of pressure by IT Department - Compliance with ITAT Rules regarding rectification of mistakes - High Court's involvement in directing consideration of stay petitions - Legal position on recalling or amending orders under s. 254(2) IT Act Application to recall orders passed in stay petitions: The applicants sought to recall orders passed in stay petitions filed on 30th July, 2002, which were later withdrawn on 13th Nov., 2002, resulting in dismissal on 14th Nov., 2002. The applicants claimed withdrawal was due to pressure from the IT Department for recovery of demands and disputed tax, requesting restoration of the stay petitions. Allegations of pressure by IT Department: The Senior Departmental Representative opposed the recall, asserting that the withdrawal was baseless and lacked supporting evidence. The Department argued that the applicants failed to specify any apparent mistake in the record justifying the recall under ITAT Rules, emphasizing the need for clarity on rectifiable errors. Compliance with ITAT Rules regarding rectification of mistakes: The Department contended that the applicants' failure to identify a mistake apparent from the record rendered the recall applications invalid under the ITAT Rules. Emphasizing the requirement for a clear indication of rectifiable errors, the Department argued against allowing a re-argument of the matter beyond the scope of s. 254(2) IT Act. High Court's involvement in directing consideration of stay petitions: The Department highlighted the Orissa High Court's order directing the Kolkata Bench to consider the stay petitions within 3 weeks, questioning the circumstances leading to the directive. The Department suggested that the High Court might have been misled by incomplete information provided by the applicants, indicating discrepancies in the facts presented. Legal position on recalling or amending orders under s. 254(2) IT Act: The Tribunal reiterated the legal principle that orders can only be amended or recalled under s. 254(2) if a mistake apparent from the record is identified. Citing the provision's requirement for a clear error for rectification, the Tribunal dismissed the recall applications due to the absence of any such mistake pointed out by the applicants. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications to recall the stay orders, emphasizing the necessity of a clear mistake apparent from the record for amendments under s. 254(2) IT Act. The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with ITAT Rules and the legal standard for recalling or amending orders based on identifiable errors.
|
