| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
March 1, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Mistake in s. 254(2) order cannot be rectified
The Special Bench passed an order u/s 254(1) holding that the enhanced compensation received by the assessee for acquisition of its land was to be assessed on receipt basis. The assessee filed a MA claiming that there were certain mistakes in the order which was dismissed on the ground that as the P&H High Court had held that the order of the Special Bench was not sustainable, the order of the Tribunal had merged with the order of the High Court and there was no question of rectification of any mistake (see 117 ITD 129). Against this MA order, the department filed a MA pointing out that as the assessee was based in Uttar Pradesh, the P&H High Court had no jurisdiction over the assessee. The department’s MA was allowed and it was held that the P&H High Court’s order was not good law and the observations made while disposing of the assessee’s MA were not sustainable in law and constituted an apparent mistake. Against the said MA order, the assessee filed a MA contending that the Tribunal could not rectify a mistake in a MA order. HELD dismissing the MA:
(i) S. 254 (2) can be invoked only if there is a mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal u/s 254(1). As the MA filed by the assessee is against an order passed u/s 254(2) it has to be rejected CIT vs. ITAT 196 ITR 838 (Ori) followed;
(ii) Though the s. 254(2) order against which the rectification was filed was also passed in respect of an earlier s. 254(2), the only course permissible to the assessee is to file an appeal against that order and not to approach the Tribunal to contend that the said order should be recalled on the ground that it was an invalid order.
Related Posts:
- CIT vs. Sadiq Sheikh (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench) If the ITAT were to have considered the aforesaid circumstances, which, according to us, the ITAT was duty-bound to, we are quite sure that the ITAT would not have, nevertheless, found the so-called explanation of the assessees acceptable or in compliance with the provisions of Section 68 of the said…
- Ivan Singh vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench) The crucial phrase in Section 68 of the IT Act, which provides that the sum so credited in the books and which is not sufficiently explained, may be charged to the income tax as income of the assessee of “that previous year” also lends support to the contentions of Dr.…
- Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (Supreme Court) (Larger Bench) The object of preventing, setting up of false or frivolous defence to set at naught the benefit emanating from amended provisions, has to be given full effect. Otherwise, it would become very easy to deprive the daughter of her rights as a coparcener. When such a defence is taken, the…
- Clearview Healthcare P. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and by applying the principles from the aforesaid decision and legislative intent behind insertion of section 56(2)(viib), I hold that addition made by AO on account of alleged excess share premium is unjustified when those very shares are sold…
- Muradul Haque vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find that Finance (No.2) Act has made amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Various benches of the Tribunals including the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, have held the amendment made by Finance (No 2) Act to be curative in nature. We further finds the coordinate bench…
- Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl CIT (ITAT Delhi) The department, which is State, can be permitted to selectively apply the standards set by themselves for their own conduct. If this type of deviation is permitted, the consequences will be that floodgate of corruption will be opened which it is not desirable to encourage. When the department has set…
Leave a Reply