9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of the court was delivered by S. K. SETH J.— This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), at the instance of the Revenue. Appeal is directed against the order dated March 31, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT" for short) in M. A. No. 61/Ind/2003. By the order impugned the income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the application filed by the under section 254(2) of the Act. Hence, this appeal, which was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the application made by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmercial production actually started on May 4, 1988, and not on February 2, 1992, as claimed by the assessee. In view of this finding, the assessee sought leave of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to raise an additional ground to carry forward business losses of the previous years instead of pre-operative expenses. It being a pure question of law to be determined on the basis of the material already available on record, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee to raise the additional ground. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after hearing the rival submissions, by a detailed order accepted the contention of the assessee that the pre-operative expenses intended to be capitalised, be treated as business los ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal to review its own order. He submitted that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal being a quasi-judicial authority, it cannot review its own order unless the power is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, Shri Jain relied upon two decisions of the Rajasthan High Court reported in CIT v. Roop Narain Sardar Mal [2004] 267 ITR 601, CIT v. Bannalal Jat [2005] 273 ITR 259 and a decision of this court reported in CIT v. Malwa Texturising P. Ltd . [2007] 292 ITR 488. 7. Per contra, Shri Chaphekar, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, submitted that the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal passed in appeal suffered from an er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the record'. This type of mistake in the order can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. In our considered opinion, reliance placed by Shri Jain on the decisions noted supra, does not advance the case of the Revenue as they are clearly distinguishable on the facts. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the application under section 254(2), when it was pointed out that the decision of a co-ordinate Bench escaped the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's attention at the time of passing of the final order. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue in appeal to the High Court. The said appeal was allowed and against the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
