9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of which was received by the office of Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur on 16.12.2020 in the case of M/s Girirajkripa Developers Pvt. Ltd., A 2PSM, Complex, Power House Road, Banipark, Jaipur, A.Y 2010-11 and on perusal of the record, accordingly to the ld. DR it was observed that the ITAT has not appreciated the facts regarding issuance and service of the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and the time limit prescribed u/s 149 of the Act is for issuance of notice and not the service thereof. As per the ld. DR, the ITAT has wrongly recorded a finding that the department has failed to bring on record that the notice u/s 148 was ever served upon the assessee as is apparent that the notice was issued in time and dispatched throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03/2017 and thus whenever the condition as is prescribed U/s 148 of the Act and it was also submitted that the said notice was also served upon one "Shri Gopal" but said facts have not been correctly appreciated by the bench while deciding the main appeal on merits, therefore, according to the ld. DR, there is apparent error in the order passed by the ITAT. As far as the above arguments as raised by the ld. DR while supporting his Misc. application is concerned, in this regard, after evaluating the records, we found that the aspect with regard to issuance of notice and service thereof has been meticulously dealt with by the Tribunal in its order and the operative portion of the said order starts from para No. 7 to 14 of the order. In the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal passed on merit. Thus, its subject matter is not covered by the provisions of the section 254(2) of the Act. 6. The main issue now raised by the Revenue in the impugned Misc. application has already been dealt with after appreciation of legal and factual position of case and adjudicated upon merits, therefore, this ground mentioned in the Misc. application do not fall under the purview of provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act. The provisions of Section contemplate to rectify any mistake apparent from record and non-consideration of any argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment and the same cannot be rectified u/s. 254(2) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -open the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act, in the absence of any manifest error, which is obvious, clear and self evident. Thus, the Tribunal is not competent to recall its previous order and re-write the same again and reverse the earlier decision taken on merit what can be rectified under the said section is a mistake apparent from record and not the mistake which needs elaborate reason or inquiry to establish the same. Similarly, where two opinions are possible, such a situation do not fall under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vardhman Spinnings 226 ITR 296 (P&H). Thus, it is clear that the power so conferred does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
