9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly, the recall of orders dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008, could have the effect of enhancing the liability of the Assessee.The Tribunal, therefore, to our minds, was required to issue notice to the assessee, before recalling its orders dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008.Thus, for all these reasons, we are of the view that the order dated 31.07.2015, need not be disturbed. - T.C.A. Nos. 879 to 882 of 2016, C.M. P. Nos. 20446 to 20448 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Vijaya Raghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Iyer ORDER ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by Rajiv Shakdher, J. ) 1.These are four appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 1.1.These appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 31.07.2015, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal). 2.The appellant, i.e., the Revenue, is aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal has, vide, the impugned judgment recalled its order dated 18.04.2013, passed in miscellaneous petitions, i.e., M.P.Nos.133 to 136/Mds/2014, preferred by the Assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d acted on its own, without noticing the affected party, that is, the Assessee. 9.1.The submission being that the order dated 18.04.2013 was passed, in complete breach of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, by virtue of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal corrected that error. 10.This apart, the learned counsel submitted that the order dated 18.04.2013, was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in view of the fact that it was passed, well beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 254 (2) of the Act. 10.1.In other words, the submission, was that, even if suo motu powers were exercised by the Tribunal, they could not have been exercised, beyond the period of limitation, prescribed under Section 254 (2) of the Act. 11.In support of the submissions made above, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Assessee on the following two judgments of the Bombay High Court: Commissioner of Income-tax-2 Vs. Central Bank of India, [2014] 51 taxmann.com 527 (Bombay) and Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai Vs. Air India Limited, [2016] 66 taxmann.com 52 (Bombay). 12.We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recalled its orders, dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008, based on the petitions filed by the Revenue, if the same, had been filed, within a period of four years, from the date, when the said orders were passed. 16.1.Since, the miscellaneous petitions filed by the Revenue were beyond time, clearly, they could not have been entertained by the Tribunal. 16.2.The fact however, remains that these miscellaneous petitions dated 15.01.2013, were never pressed before the Tribunal, prior to its recall order dated 18.04.2013. The said petitions were brought up, before the Tribunal only on 29.07.2016. 16.3.The record would show that the said miscellaneous petitions were numbered by the Tribunal only in 2013. 16.4.The numbers accorded to these miscellaneous petitions, were: M.P.Nos.224/Mds/2013, 225/Mds/2013 and 226/Mds/2013. 16.5.As would be evident from the numbers set out above, for one assessment year, no petition appears to have been filed. 17.As is evident from the facts narrated above, in the meanwhile, the Assessee had filed and pressed, instead, its miscellaneous petitions bearing numbers: M.P.Nos.133 to 136/Mds/2014 - for recall of order dated 18.04.2013. 17.1.The Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the [Assessing] Officer: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: [Provided further xxxxxxxx ] [(2A) xxxxxxxx : [Provided that the xxxxxxx : Provided further xxxxxxxxxxx : [Provided also that xxxxxx ]] (2B) xxxxxxxxx ] (emphasis is ours) 22.1.A perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Act, would show that it supports, what is stated herein above, by us. 23.Insofar as, suo motu power is concerned, it is contained in the first limb of sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Act, while the second limb of the same provision, confers powers on the Tribunal, to carry out a rectification of mistake, apparent on the record, on it being triggered by an application moved, either by the assessee, or the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
