9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. There is no express power of review conferred on this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review does not extent to re-hearing of the case on merit. See CIT vs. Pearl Woollen Mills (2009 (11) TMI 48 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT). - M.A. Nos. 168, 169 & 170/Hyd/2012 (in ITA Nos. 479, 480 & 481/HYD/2006) - - - Dated:- 21-6-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Applicant : Shri. M. H. Naik For the Respondent : Shri A. V. Raghuram ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, A.M. These Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue arise out of the order of ITAT "A" Bench, Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad, in appeals ITA No. 479 to 481/Hyd/2006 dated 26/08/2011, wherein the Department sought rectification in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder by the Tribunal, for which the Tribunal has no power. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the parties. After considering the arguments of both the parties, the Tribunal concurred with the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds taken by the Department. By this MA, the learned DR wanted the Tribunal to review its earlier order, which the Tribunal cannot do it in view of the provisions of section 254(2), as per which, the powers of the Tribunal are limited. Further it is well settled that statutory authority cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There is no express power of review conferred on this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review does not extent to re-hearing of the case on mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. An order under s. 254(2) does not have existence de hors the order under s. 254(1). Recalling of the order is not permissible under s. 254(2). Recalling of an order automatically necessitates rehearing and re-adjudication of the entire subject-matter of appeal. The dispute no longer remains restricted to any mistake sought to be rectified. Power to recall an order is prescribed in terms of Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, and that too only in case where the assessee shows that it had a reasonable cause for being absent at a time when the appeal was taken up and was decided ex-parte. Judged in the above background the order passed by the Tribunal is indefensible. 6. The words used in s. 254(2) are 'shall make such amendment, if the mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and ambit of application of s. 254(2) of IT Act is restricted to rectification of the mistakes apparent from the record. (b) Secondly, that no party appearing before the Tribunal should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal and if the prejudice has resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake/error or omission, and which an error is a manifest error, then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake. The "rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law and that principle is not obliterated by s. 254(2) of the Act and non-consideration of precedent by the Tribunal causes a prejudice to the assessee. (c) Thirdly, power to rectify a mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
