9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of section 254(2) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules discussed the provisions and decided that the application for recall is to be decided in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 24 of the Rules and reliance upon Section 254 was misplaced. No reason to disagree with the said judgment as in the present case also, the application moved by the petitioner, in its tenor was traceable to the provisions of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules and the petitioner never sought rectification of the said order. A mere wrong mention in the title of the application, that too on the basis of the observations made by the Tribunal itself cannot be construed against the petitioner and cannot wipe away the scope o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A) by filing an Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench. It is the case of the petitioner that the said appeal filed by the petitioner was listed for hearing on 26.06.2018, however as the notice of hearing was not served upon the petitioner, he could not appear on the said date, as a result whereof, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution. While dismissing the said appeal, an observation was made by the ITAT that the assessee would be at liberty to move an application under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, in case the assessee so desires. 4. It is argued that although the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and the remedy for recalling of the said order was prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll make an order setting aside the ex-parte order and restoring the appeal. 6. He argued that once a specific provision for recalling the order is provided in the Rules under which the Tribunal is supposed to work, the mention of Section 254 in the impugned order is wholly misplaced as the power under section 254 of the Income Tax Act is prescribed for rectification of errors which have been occurred in the order of the Appellate Tribunal and thus, the mention of provisions of Section 254 (2) and the limitation prescribed therein is wholly unwarranted as the application of the petitioner from the tenor was under Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. He argues that mention of Section 254 in the application filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
