9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal (Tribunal). By the impugned order, the Petitioner's applications to rectify the order dated 14th May, 2010 passed by the Tribunal on a rectification application was dismissed. The order dated 14th May, 2010 partly recalled the common order dated 18th January 2008 passed in respect of Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 on the Petitioner's application for rectification. 3. The Petitioner had during three subject Assessment Years viz. Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 claimed deduction under Section 80HHC and 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) while computing its income under Section 115JA/115JB of the Act. The Revenue did not accept the Petitioner's contention. This resulted in the Petitioner& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion before the Tribunal. However, in the title of the rectification application, the Petitioner while seeking to rectify the order dated 18th January, 2008 by mistake had referred it as arising out of the Income Tax Appeal Nos.904, 867 and 868/Mum/2005. These three appeal numbers referred to the appeals filed by the Revenue as is evident from the title of the order dated 18th January, 2008. 7. By order dated 14th May, 2010, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application for rectification filed by the Petitioner by recalling the order dated 18th January, 2008 to the extent of non-consideration of deduction under Section 80HHC and 80IA of the Act. However, the title of order dated 14th May, 2010 by mistake referred to order dated 18th J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation filed by the Petitioner, seeking to correct the order of the Tribunal dated 14th May, 2010. This dismissal of the rectification application was on the following grounds: (a) A rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Act can be entertained only to rectify an order passed under Section 254(1) of the Act and not to correct an error passed under Section 254(2) of the Act. In support, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT v/s. President ITAT 196 ITR 838; and (b) There is no mistake committed in the order dated 14th May, 2010 of the Tribunal. In any case, the proceeding under Section 254(2) of the Act are meant only for rectifying mistakes apparent from the record committed by the Tribunal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Tribunal. Though not necessary for the disposal of this Petition, we express our disapproval of the stand taken in the impugned order that Section 254(2) of the Act are meant only for rectifying the mistakes of the Tribunal and not of the parties. 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 under Section 254(2) of the Act. It cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the above ground. 14. In view of the above, we set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
