9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 254(2) cannot be rectified nor amended by invoking sub-section (2) of Section 254 once again. Repetitive applications under Section 254 (2) of the Act are not permissible. In the case on hand also, the Tribunal in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of Section 254 has rectified the mistake apparent on the record and deleted the double addition of income in respect of the assessee. Thereafter, the Revenue again files an application under sub-section (2) of Section 254 seeking rectification of the order passed under sub-section (2) of Section 254 which is not maintainable. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Misc. petition filed by the Revenue. There is no error or omission in the order passed by the Tribunal. Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed an appeal against the assessment order before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) dismissed the appeals of both the assessee and her husband. Both the assessee and her husband filed appeals in ITA Nos.855 and 856 of 2016 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. The Appellate Tribunal, by its detailed order dated 16.06.2017 rejected both the appeals of the assessee as well as the husband of the assessee. While dismissing theappeals, the Appellate Tribunal has noted that the assessee was not agreeing to give consent for obtaining bank statement from HSBC, Geneva. Hence, adverse inference was drawn against the assessee. 3. Thereafter, the assessee filed Misc. Petition No.178 of 2017 under Section 254(2) of the Act to rectify t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17, the Revenue is in appeal before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit thatthere is a mistake apparent on the record. That Misc. Petition No.178 of 2017 filed by the assessee was disposed off without going into the facts and merits of the case. The finding that substantive addition made to the husband of the assessee is not borne on the records. It is his further contention that the petition under Section 254(2) of the Act would be maintainable against an order passed in Misc. Petition which was filed under Section 254(2) itself and prays for allowing the appeal. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue and on perusal of the appeal papers including the detailed order passed by the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act reads as follows: 254(1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. 254(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section(1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee. 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 not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
