9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal and reconsider the submission made in the miscellaneous application. The following fact has been mentioned in the application that the assessee alongwith two other group concerns were searched by the Department on 22nd March, 1988. All the three concerns made disclosure under s. 132(4) of the Act. While filing return of income, the present assessee requested the AO to treat the excess a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he junior Departmental Representative who appeared before the Tribunal namely; S.S. Panwar was not properly considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has passed the order on a misconception of fact. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Hence, he made a prayer to recall the said order for deciding afresh. 3. The learned Departmental Representative in support of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and perused the materials on record. Before dealing with the case on merit, we would like to decide the maintainability of the present application first. There is no dispute that the present application under s. 254(2) of the Act has been filed by senior Authorised Representative of the IT Department. The relevant provision of s. 254(2) of the Act is as follows: "254(2) The Tribunal may at a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin a prescribed time. Therefore, on consideration of the aforesaid provisions, we find that the Parliament has prescribed different authorities for filing applications under s. 254(2) and 256(1) of the Act on behalf of the Revenue. It is an admitted fact that we have been receiving reference applications filed by the CIT, under s. 256(1) of the Act. In the present application under s. 254(2) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
