9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue is in appeal. 2. The respondent filed appeal in ITA No.856 of 2016against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.03.2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee was subjected to search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act. The assessee had made a statement that her husband knows about thebank accounts and immovable properties. The appellant was issued with a show cause notice asking her to furnish confirmation from HSBC, Geneva to indicate that the bank account does not belong to the assessee. Since the said account was in the joint name of the assessee and her husband, the notice stated that on failure to substantiate the deposits, the deposits would be brought to tax. The assessee failed to f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the assessee's appealought to have been allowed. The Tribunal noting that the substantive addition made to the assessee's husband being upheld was of the opinion that protective addition to the assessee has to go. Further, as the substantive addition made to the husband of the assessee, the protective addition made to the assessee is an apparent mistake and rectified the same under Section 254(2) of the Act and deleted the addition of Rs. 5,98,40,607/- made to theassessee. Against this order, the Revenue filed Misc.Petition No.35 of 2018 under Section 254(2) of the Act to rectify the mistake apparent on record of the order dated 24.08.2017 passed in M.P.No.178 of 2017. The Tribunal dismissed the said petition holding that the same is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 254(2) of the Act to rectify the mistake apparent on record in respect of theassessee on the ground that addition of income has been made to both assessee as well as her husband, which would amount to double addition. The Tribunal, in exercise of its power under Section 254(2) of the Act rectified the mistake and deleted the addition of income of Rs. 5,98,40,617/- made to the assessee. The Revenue filed Misc.Petition 35 of 2018 under Section 254(2) against the order passed under Section 254(2) in Misc. Petition No.178 of 2017, contending that there is a mistake apparent on record and sought to rectify the same. TheTribunal rightly dismissed the Misc. petition holding that the Misc. petition to rectify the mistake in Misc. Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empower the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed under sub-section (1), if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties to the proceedings, within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. From a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 254, it would be clear that the Tribunal possesses the power to rectify any mistake apparent on the record in the order passed by it under sub-Section (1). If the order undersub-section (2) of Section 254 is passed, the said order would not be available for rectification of mistake again under Section 254 (2) of the Act. The order passed under Section 254(2) cannot be rectified nor amended by invoking sub-section (2) of Section 254 onc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
