9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dt. 14th Nov., 2002. These miscellaneous applications have been filed on 3rd April, 2003, with a prayer that the stay orders passed on 14th Nov., 2002, may be recalled. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel of these petitioners submitted that petitions for withdrawal of the stay petitions were filed because of the fact that the pressure was made by the IT Department by issue of attachment notices for recovery of the demands and disputed tax and also further pressurised to give consent for depositing some amount. He further submitted that the stay petitions withdrawn previously may kindly be restored back by recalling the earlier order dt. 14th Nov., 2002, passed by the Tribunal. 4. The learned Senior Departmental Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Representative further submitted that the petitioners have alleged that these applications were filed for withdrawal of stay petitions because of the fact that pressure was made by the IT Department by issue of attachment notice for recovery of demands and that to give consent for depositing some amount. These allegations were baseless and without any supporting evidence. 7. It was further submitted by the learned Senior Departmental Representative that in these cases the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in WP(C) 2168/2003 had passed order No. 2 on 14th March, 2003, calling upon the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, to take up for consideration the stay petitions which had been filed before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court had directed the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. CIT (1994) 121 CTR (Del) 86. What can be rectified under s. 254(2) is a mistake which is apparent and patent. Unless there are manifest errors which are obvious, clear and evident the Tribunal cannot recall its previous orders. Where an appeal was dismissed by a Tribunal as withdrawn it is held that an application for rectification of the dismissal order was not competent as has been held in Mahakoshal Ceramics vs. CIT (1983) 33 CTR (MP) 22 : (1983) 143 ITR 969 (MP). Therefore, the miscellaneous applications are liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the record available. So far as the conduct of the petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court, as pointed out by learned Departmental R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
