9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is caused to any of the parties - This power has not to be traced to any provision of the Act but inheres in every quasi-judicial authority – the same has been held in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v/s. Central Government Industrial Tribunal [1980 (12) TMI 181 - SUPREME COURT] - no party should be prejudiced on account of any mistake in the order of the Tribunal - The Tribunal and the parties are not adversarial to each other - In fact, the Tribunal and the parties normally represented by Advocates/Chartered Accountants are comrades in arms to achieve justice - Therefore, a mistake from any source be it-the parties or the Tribunal so long as it becomes a part of the record, would require examination by the Tribunal u/s 254(2) – it cannot be dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. In its appeal memo for the three Assessment Years, the Petitioner had specifically urged the aforesaid ground of being entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HHC and 80IB of the Act. This is also indicated in the final common order dated 18th January, 2008 passed under Section 254(1) of the Act of the Tribunal. However, after recording the Petitioner's ground as taken up in the appeal memo, the same is not been considered by the Tribunal while disposing of the Petitioner's appeal finally under Section 254(1) of the Act by order dated 18th January 2008. 5. The title of the order dated 18th January 2008 while disposing of the three appeals filed by the Petitioner as well as the Revenue for the three Assessment Years re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of the Income Tax Appeal Nos.904, 867 and 868/Mum/2005 i.e. Revenue's appeal. The title of the order dated 14th May, 2010 reads as under: M. A. No.10/Mum/2010 (Arising out of ITA Nos.904,867 868/M/2005: A. Years 1999-2000 to 2001-02) M/s. The Supreme Industries Limited 612, Raheja Chambers, 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. PAN NO:AAACTI344F. Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit (LTU), 29th Floor, World Trade Centre1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005. (Applicant) (Respondent) 8. Thereafter, the Petitioner realized that order dated 14th May, 2010 while rectifying the order dated 18th January 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meant only for rectifying mistakes apparent from the record committed by the Tribunal and not the mistake of the parties concerned. 11. We find it is an undisputed position that a mistake has occurred in the order dated 14th May, 2010 in mentioning Income Tax Appeal Nos. 904, 867 and 868/Mum/2005 (being Appeal numbers allotted to the Revenue's appeal) in stead of Income Tax Appeal Nos.906, 907 and 908/Mum/2005. However, the impugned order rejected the application for rectification on the ground that such an application is not maintainable under Section 254(2) of the Act as held by the Orissa High Court in CIT v/s. President-ITAT (supra). 12. It is a settled position in law that every authority exercising quasi judicial powers has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
