9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t opportunity, the assessing officer quantified the penalty in a sum of Rs.2,21,320/- - Tribunal deleted the penalty in an order of rectification - held that - . Once an application seeking for rectification is disposed of, be it the revenue or the assessee, if aggrieved, should have the recourse to the provisions of appeal before this Court and either of them cannot invoke the provisions of Section 254(2) by filing another application for rectification which, in our view, cannot be entertained under that section. We may also observe that on the facts of this case, by the subsequent order of rectification, the original order of the Tribunal itself is sought to be rectified, which resulted in the deletion of the penalty levied under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee which involved debatable questions of fact and reappraisal of the evidence? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cancelling the penalty dated 23.4.2001 on the second Miscellaneous Petition purporting to rectify the original appellate order dated 27.10.1996 is valid being barred by the period of limitation prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act?" 3. The core question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether in exercise of the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellate Tribunal would be entitled to entertain an application seeking for rectification of its order for the second time, when a similar application was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of fact, we are not in a position to accept the assessee's case that there was an error apparent from the record in their proceedings for the rectification. This Tribunal cannot sit over in appeal on its decision which was passed after considering relevant facts and submissions. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the stand taken by the assessee." 5. It appears that thereafter the assessee filed another Miscellaneous Petition No.51/Mds/2000 pointing out certain factual discrepancies that had crept in while the main appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal on 27.10.96. That application came to be allowed by the order dated 24.3.2001, which is questioned in this appeal by the revenue. 6. We have heard Mr.K.Subramaniam, learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed within a period of four years from the date of the order. On entertaining such application, the Tribunal should also pass orders amending any orders that have been passed in the appeal. But such order shall be passed only after notice to the parties in terms of the proviso. The provision of Section 254(2) is intended for the parties to approach the appellate Tribunal only on the ground of any mistake apparent from the record had occurred in the original order. Factually, in this case, the assessee had filed such an application seeking for rectification on the ground that a mistake apparent from the record had occurred in the original order of the Tribunal and that application was rejected on its own merits. In view of the same, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
