Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee for not considering the second paper book filed by the assessee. On writ, the Court held that there was no denial of the averments in paragraph 4.4 of the petition, about the first paper book, second paper book of seventy-one pages, when it was filed, and the fact that the copy of the second paper book of seventy-one pages was served on the respondents. On February 23, 2022, the court had directed the first respondent to file an affidavit after inspecting the records and proceedings and make a statement whether such a paper book was filed. The affidavit had been filed stating that the paper book was not found. The assessee had filed an affidavit through its director stating that the paper book was filed. A copy of the paper book was also served on October 1, 2019, on the Departmental representative through a covering letter addressed to the Registrar, Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, the assessee’s explanation that a paper book containing seventy-one pages was filed was accepted. Without going into or dealing with this point, the Tribunal had simply rejected the miscellaneous application. Therefore, the order was quashed and set aside and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to the assessee to file a compilation once again in the Tribunal within two weeks and the Tribunal shall consider the compilation and decide whether its order dated November 13, 2019, dismissing the assessee’s appeal required any modification.(AY.2014-15)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Affidavit-Copy of second paper book served on respondents-No denial of averment of assessee in petition that second paper book filed-Tribunal rejecting miscellaneous application without considering second paper book-Order of Tribunal quashed, remanded to Tribunal for consideration of second paper book.[S. 254(1), Art. 226]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fF3","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60205","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60205"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60205\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60206,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60205\/revisions\/60206"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}