9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Incorrect finding regarding assessment on the legal heir. 2. Omission to consider judicial pronouncements. 3. Non-service of appeal memo to the assessee. 4. Failure to restore the matter to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Incorrect Finding Regarding Assessment on the Legal Heir: The assessee contended that the ITAT erroneously recorded a finding that the assessment was made on the legal heir of the deceased assessee. The assessee argued that the notice under section 148 was served only to one legal representative and not all. The Tribunal found no apparent mistake in its order dated 12-12-2003, noting that the facts and case law were duly considered, and the assessee failed to point out any material evidence ignored by the ITAT. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was seeking a review, which is not permissible under section 254(2). 2. Omission to Consider Judicial Pronouncements: The assessee claimed that the Tribunal omitted to deal with certain judicial pronouncements supporting the contention that the assessment order made after the death of the assessee was nullity in law. The Tribunal examined the order and found that the case law cited by the assessee was discussed in detail in the original order. Therefore, the Tribunal found no omission or mistake in relation to the judicial pronouncements. 3. Non-service of Appeal Memo to the Assessee: The assessee argued that the memo of appeal was not served, preventing the filing of a cross-objection to support the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea but found no apparent mistake in its original order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file cross-objections or cross-appeal before ITAT, and thus could not claim further opportunity to do so. 4. Failure to Restore the Matter to CIT(A) for Adjudication on Merits: The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds on merits. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which emphasized the Tribunal's broad powers to pass orders necessary for adjudicating the subject matter. The Tribunal concluded that it had a legal obligation to restore the matter to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, which it failed to do in its original order. This omission amounted to a mistake apparent from the record, warranting rectification under section 254(2). Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application in part. While maintaining its order on the legal issue, the Tribunal amended its order dated 12-12-2003 to include directions for the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds on merits. This amendment was necessary to rectify the mistake of not restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized its duty to ensure substantial justice and prevent miscarriage of justice by issuing appropriate directions for the proper adjudication of the subject matter of the appeal.
|
