9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The order passed under 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 - Miscellaneous petition by the revenue is dismissed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the order that there is no material brought on record showing that the IPRs, the use for which royalty income was generated, were IPRs developed by industrial undertaking which claimed deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. In the MP, the assessee has pointed out that even the AO in the order of assessment has treated the royalty income as business income and not income from other sources. It was also submitted that neither the AO nor the DRP disputed this position. It was the only case of revenue that royalty income was not directly derived from export business of STPI/SEZ unit and hence it was excluded from the business income while computing deduction u/s. 10A/10AA of the Act. In the light of such undisputed position, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld by the DRP. Tribunal had in detail discussed the issue in its original order and had relied upon various case-laws and decided on the issue. There were no errors apparent in the original order of the Tribunal for an MP to be admitted on this issue. 5. Since, this being mistake apparent from records, it is prayed that the instant order of the may be re called and the original order be re-instated. 4. The ld. DR read the original order of the Tribunal and submitted that there was no mistake in the order of Tribunal. The Bench pointed out that the MA is filed with reference to the order passed in MP No.38/Bang/2019 and therefore the revenue ought to point out the apparent errors in that order, rather than reading the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (2) of Section 254 of the Act would empower the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apart 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 under sub-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 invokin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
