2004 (6) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... petitioner is that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal omitted to consider the decision of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews Sons vs. CIT (2003) 181 CTR (Ker) 207 : (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) which was cited before the Tribunal while hearing the appeal. The learned representative for the petitioner, Shri Banusekar submitted before us that this is an error/mistake apparen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e petitioner, therefore, contended that by virtue of this direction the AO cannot decide the issue on merits as he has simply to follow the direction given by the CIT in the revisionary order. This is a prejudice caused to the assessee which requires rectification. The learned representative further contended that the paper book filed by the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal contained .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l in the case of Finquick Finance (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, this is a mistake apparent on record which requires to be rectified under s. 254(2) of the Act. As rightly contended by the learned representative for the petitioner, the last portion of the order passed under s. 263 of the Act requires reconsideration. Therefore, in the interest of justice and for the reasons stated above we recall the order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X