TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application was barred by limitation under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; and whether the earlier dismissal of the Revenue's appeal for want of COD approval, passed under Rule 12 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, could be recalled after the Supreme Court withdrew the COD approval requirement.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the impugned dismissal order was not a substantive appellate order under section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but a procedural order passed under Rule 12 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 read with section 255(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such an interim procedural order was held not to be governed by the four-year limitation prescribed by section 254(2). The Tribunal further held that once the Supreme Court recalled the COD approval regime, the foundation of the earlier dismissal order ceased to exist, and where the original order itself had reserved liberty to seek recall on obtaining COD approval, refusal to recall would be unjust. The Tribunal distinguished authorities dealing with retrospective amendments in completed matters and treated the present situation as one where the appeal remained capable of being restored for decision on merits.
Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected, and the miscellaneous application was maintainable; the earlier order dismissing the appeal for want of COD approval was recalled.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was restored to be heard on merits, and the procedural bar based on COD approval no longer survived.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural order dismissing an appeal for want of COD approval, passed under Rule 12 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, is not constrained by the rectification limitation under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and may be recalled when the legal basis for dismissal has been withdrawn.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
