9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment delivered by it earlier in the garb of exercising its power under section 254(2) - reading the language of sections 154 and 254, it appears that there is not much difference between the two and same principle would apply - order made by CIT (Appeals) u/s 154 and the order made by the Tribunal are set aside - - - - - Dated:- 11-10-2004 - Judge(s) : B. C. PATEL., BADAR DURREZ AHMED. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by B.C. Patel C.J. - Admit. The following question of law at the instance of the assessee is required to be determined by this court in the present appeal preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"): "Whether the Income-tax Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, to the effect that the admitted tax on the returned income is not paid as per requirement of section 249(4)(a) of the Act much after the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disposed of the appeal on January 28,1997, against which appeal preferred by the Revenue was pending before the Tribunal. After the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee and during the pendency of appeal before the Tribunal such request was made and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after long hearing by a detailed order held that the appeal was invalid and dismissed the appeal. Against the said order the assessee preferred an appeal being I.T.A. No. 3648/Delhi of 1999 which was dismissed by the Tribunal by a detailed order dated November 28, 2002, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the order on an application under section 254(2) and in passing the impugned order?" We examined the question in para. 2 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under: "2. The decision is reported in CIT v. Vichtra Construction P. Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 371, 374 (Delhi). The question requires no more discussion as the same is covered by the decision and we have held under: 'In view of the provisions and judicial pronouncement indicated hereinabove, we are of the view that the power to rectify a mistake under section 254(2) cannot be used for recalling the entire order, power of review has been given to the Tribunal under the Income-Act. Thus, what it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
