9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court of Uttaranchal on the point of taxability of off period salary . It has been stated that the ITAT have dismissed the Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) vide order dated 27-1-2005 holding that there is no consensus among courts on the power of the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act to rectify its order on the basis of the subsequent decision of the jurisdictional High Court and thus there is no mistake apparent from record. It has further been stated that the issue of Miscellaneous Application again came up before the Tribunal in the case of Hughes Services (PE) Pte Ltd. as agent of Mr. Vestel Howard [Misc. Application Nos. 12 and 13 (Delhi) of 2004 [IT Appeal Nos. 1700, 1701, 1704, 1717, 1723, 1738, 1739, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing any order made under section 254(1) of the Act. He has further submitted that the Tribunal after having considered the earlier Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue have dismissed the same as there was no apparent mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal dated 23-2-2001 in ITA Nos. 743 to 744/Delhi/95 and 7444 to 7450/Delhi/95 for assessment year 1992-93. He has further submitted that the Bench has been asked to recall the earlier order passed under section 254(2) of the Act which is not permissible under law as on the similar facts and circumstances the second Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue Department. In support thereto he has placed reliance upon a decision in the case of CIT v. President, ITAT [199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on the point of taxability of off period salary . It may be mentioned that this is the second Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue on the similar ground and contentions as were raised in the first Miscellaneous Application except mentioning that Third Member in other case has held that there is a mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal passed in the said case, which is liable to be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. In the case of CIT v. President, ITAT [1992] 196 ITR 838 the Hon ble Orissa High Court has held as under : "Section 254(2) empowered the Tribunal to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record at any time within four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
