9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of the Act. - Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - M.A. No.26/Hyd/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.808/Hyd/2017) - - - Dated:- 12-4-2019 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad For the Revenue : Shri C.V. Pawan Kumar,DR ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. This M.A. is filed by the revenue beyond the due date as prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Act i.e. within six months from the date of the order. In view of our order in M.A. No.55/Hyd/2018 dated 18.07.2018 in the case of ACIT vs. Gayathri Infra Ventures Ltd, this M.A. is not maintainable. For the sake of ready reference, relevant paragraphs are reproduced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a consequence of rectifying the original order. It is pertinent to note that Section 254(2) of the Act does not prohibit the recall of an order. In fact the power/jurisdiction of the Tribunal to recall an order on rectification application made under Section 254(2) of the Act is no longer resintegra. The issue stands covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Saurtashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 305 ITR 227 which held that though the Tribunal has no power to review its own order, yet it has jurisdiction to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record and as a consequence therefore, Tribunal can even recall its order. In the above case before the Apex Court on 27 October 2000 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be an application for rectification of the order dated 6 December 2007 and would stand governed by Section 254(2) of the Act. 17) In the facts of the present case there can be no denial that the order dated 6 December 2007 suffers from an error apparent from the record. The error is in having ignored the mandate of Rule 24 of the Tribunal Rules which required the Tribunal to dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the respondents. In these circumstances, an application for rectification would lie under Section 254(2) of the Act. The recall of an order would well be a consequence of rectifying an order under Section 254(2) of the Act. In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f void was required to be set aside. A consent decree as is well known, is as good as a contested decree. Such a decree must be set aside if it has been passed in violation of law. For the said purpose, the provisions contained in Limitation Act 1963 would be applicable. It is not the law that where the decree is void, no period of limitation shall be attracted at all. Therefore, in this case also the period of four years from the date of order sought to be rectified/recalled will apply as provided in Section 254(2) of the Act. This is so even if it is assumed that the order dated 6 December 2006 is a void order. 19) We shall now answer the questions arising in this case as raised by us in Paragraph 4 above as under: Question(a): ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
