9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Ltd [ 2018 (7) TMI 1917 - ITAT HYDERABAD] the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held that the delay in filing the Miscellaneous Application cannot be condoned. - M.A. No. 33/Hyd/2020 (Arising out of ITA. No.1017/Hyd/2016, 521/Hyd/2017, 1018/Hyd/2016 and 20/Hyd/2017) - - - Dated:- 15-2-2021 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri M.V. Anil Kumar For the Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Revenue seeking recall of the Tribunal s order dated 05/12/2019. 2. The captioned Miscellaneous Application was filed on 24/07/2020, which is clearly beyond the due d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the miscellaneous application was filed on 6 August 2012. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the application under Section 254(1) of the Act would be the only provision under which an application could be made for recall of an order, as under Section 254(2) of the Act only the order can be rectified but cannot be recalled. We find that there is an error apparent on record and the miscellaneous application is to correct the error apparent from the record. The consequence of such rectification application being allowed may lead to a fresh hearing in the matter after having recalled the original order. However, the recall, if any, is only as a consequence of rectifying the original order. It is pertinent to note that Section 254 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Apex Court observed that the Tribunal in its original order while dismissing the Stock Exchange (assessee's) appeal overlooked binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court. This mistake was corrected by the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the rectification of an order stands on the fundamental principle that justice is above all and upheld the exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Act by the Tribunal in recalling its earlier order dated 27 October 2000. Thus recall of an order is not barred on rectification application being made by one of the parties. In these circumstances, the application would be an application for rectification of the order dated 6 December 2007 and would stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible, for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining a decision of Court. 3. Further, the Supreme Court in Sneh Gupta v/s. Dev Sarup (2009) 6 SCC 194 has observed as under: We are concerned herein with the question of limitation. The compromise decree, as indicated herein before, even if void was required to be set aside. A consent decree as is well known ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
