9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, passed by the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, as barred by time, as also the order, dt. 2nd June, 1995, rejecting the petitioner's application under s. 254(2) of the Act seeking rectification in the order, dt. 7th Nov., 1994. 2. The facts in brief. On 21st Feb., 1994, the Tribunal passed an order remanding the matter as to the assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by overlooking the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court, i.e., the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Arvind Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (1991) 94 CTR (Del) 211 : (1993) 193 ITR 330 (Del) : TC 55R.689. This application has been rejected on the ground that s. 254(2) of the Act was inapplicable for seeking rectification in an order rejecting an application under s. 256(1) of the Act. 4. So far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit jurisdiction of the High Court may not be exercised in favour of the petitioner. 5. It is not disputed that subsequent to the passing of the order of the remand, the matter reached the AO who passed a fresh order of assessment on 30th March, 1995. The assessee Dharm Pratisthanam went in appeal and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on 15th Jan., 1996, upholding the order of assessment. The pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econdly, there is a grave doubt if at all the order rejecting the reference application as barred by time, assuming it to be wrong, could be said to be suffering from such an error apparent as may be capable of being rectified merely. The Department should have promptly and with reasonable despatch filed a writ petition challenging the order dt. 7th Nov., 1994, and sought for stay of the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction in favour the petitioner. 8. In the case at hand, not only is there delay in filing the writ petition, but a vested right has also accrued in favour of the assessee-respondent by the order of assessment having been framed and achieved finality consequent to the order of remand, which will all be disturbed if this writ petition was to be allowed. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
