9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this M.P. in which it is contended that there are apparent mistakes in the Tribunal order dated 24.08.2017 passed in M.P. No. 178/Bang/2017 in ITA No. 856/Bang/2016. Various arguments were made by both sides and both sides were heard in length. Learned AR of the assessee submitted that as per an order of Special Bench of Tribunal rendered in the case of Shri Padam Prakash (HUF) Vs. ITO as reported in 131 ITD 121 Delhi Special Bench, it was held that u/s. 254(2) of IT Act, only that Tribunal order can be rectified which was passed u/s. 254(1) of IT Act and since the present M.P. is filed against the order passed by the Tribunal u/s. 252(2) of IT Act, this M.P. of revenue is not maintainable and should be dismissed. 3. We have considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be in any order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 254. The order referred to in Section 254(1) is one relating to an appeal filed either by the assessee or by the Revenue. The "appeal" referred to in the provision is one filed u/s 253. Therefore, the order which can be rectified must be one which has been passed by the Tribunal in an appeal filed u/s 253. An order rejecting an application for rectification u/s 254(2) cannot be rectified u/s 254(2). The same may relate to an appeal but is not an order passed by the Tribunal under sub-section (1) of Section 254 and thus, it was held that subsequent application filed by the assessee was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. (ii)In the case of Mentha & Allied Products Co .Ltd. Vs. ITAT -2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Co. - 196 Taxman 385 (Ker.), it was held that the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain an application filed by the Revenue under Section 254(2) to rectify the order issued by the Tribunal in an earlier rectification application filed by the assessee, as the second application on the very same issue is not maintainable before the Tribunal. 11. In the case of Dr.S.Panneerselvam Vs. ACIT - 319 ITR 135, it was held that the Tribunal having allowed first rectification petition, second petition was not maintainable; remedy by way of appeal was the only course open. 12. If the application filed by the assessee is viewed in the light of aforementioned judicial pronouncements, then it will become clear that the relief which is being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
