TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the order dismissing the cross-objections as time-barred suffered from an apparent mistake warranting recall under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963; (ii) whether the Vice President had jurisdiction to prepone the hearing date and whether such administrative action amounted to a review of the Bench's earlier adjournment order.
Issue (i): Whether the order dismissing the cross-objections as time-barred suffered from an apparent mistake warranting recall under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963.
Analysis: The record showed that in respect of some assessment years the delay in filing cross-objections had already been condoned, and in the remaining years condonation applications were on record. The earlier order proceeded on the premise that no such applications had been filed and, on that basis, rejected the cross-objections as barred by limitation. That factual assumption was incorrect and amounted to an apparent mistake on the face of the record. The Tribunal was therefore competent to recall its earlier order and restore the appeals and cross-objections to their original numbers.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. The earlier order was rightly recalled.
Issue (ii): Whether the Vice President had jurisdiction to prepone the hearing date and whether such administrative action amounted to a review of the Bench's earlier adjournment order.
Analysis: Under section 255 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rules 3, 4, 19 and 20 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the power to constitute Benches, allocate work, regulate procedure and notify or fix hearing dates lies within the administrative domain of the Tribunal's leadership. The roster and listing of matters are matters of administrative control, and a Bench's earlier adjournment does not oust that control. The preponement of the hearing was done pursuant to the Tribunal's administrative power and after notice to the parties. It did not amount to a judicial review of the earlier adjournment order.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee. The Vice President's administrative action was within jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous applications succeeded on the ground of apparent mistake in the earlier disposal, the order dated 16-5-2006 was recalled, and the appeals with cross-objections were restored for fresh hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: A factual error on the face of the record in rejecting cross-objections as time-barred justifies recall under section 254(2), and the Tribunal's administrative power over roster and listing includes the authority to alter hearing dates without it amounting to a review of a Bench's adjournment order.
TaxTMI 
