9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as per para 10(c) of the said CBDT Circular (supra), Revenue would contest appeals in respect of orders which were the result of the Department s acceptance of Revenue audit objections, even if the tax effect in such appeal is lower than the prescribed limit; as is the position in the case on hand. In these factual circumstances, as laid out above, we are of the view that an error has inadvertently crept into the Tribunal s order dated 03.08.2018 for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the case on hand, which is a mistake apparent from the face of the record before us and is rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Act. the very basis of the dismissal of Revenue s appeal for tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit in the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 11.07.2018; which Tribunal omitted to consider when passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the Tribunal relied on this CBDT Circular (supra), filed before it, to dismiss Revenue s appeal as the tax effect involved in the case on hand was below the prescribed monetary limits as prescribed therein. However, in doing so, the Tribunal did not apply para 10(c) thereof and consequently ought not to have dismissed the appeal, since when Revenue Audit objection has been accepted as in the case on hand; Revenue has to be allowed to contest the appeal on merits irrespective of the tax effect involved. It is contended that since this omission to apply para 10(c) of the CBDT s Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 consti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals; and inadvertently, while disposing off the 28 appeals, failed to note that as per para 10(c) of the said CBDT Circular (supra), Revenue would contest appeals in respect of orders which were the result of the Department s acceptance of Revenue audit objections, even if the tax effect in such appeal is lower than the prescribed limit; as is the position in the case on hand. In these factual circumstances, as laid out above, we are of the view that an error has inadvertently crept into the Tribunal s order dated 03.08.2018 for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the case on hand, which is a mistake apparent from the face of the record before us and is rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Act. We have carefully perused the judicial decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
