Tribunal dismisses Department's application to recall order, upholds interim order; emphasizes limited rectification power.

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's miscellaneous application under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, which sought to recall an interim order due to alleged mistakes apparent on record. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to rectify orders is limited to correcting manifest errors and not for reviewing orders. Additionally, the Tribunal found the AO's actions, including collecting funds in violation of a stay order, to be high-handed and arbitrary, not justifiable as bona fide. The Tribunal upheld the interim order as justified in addressing the Department's improper actions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged mistake apparent on record in the interim order.
2. Whether the AO's actions constituted perjury.
3. Whether the Tribunal's interim order was justified.

Summary:

1. Alleged Mistake Apparent on Record:
The Department filed a miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of the IT Act, claiming that the interim order dated 10th April 2013 contained a mistake apparent on record. The senior Departmental Representative argued that the order should be recalled as it suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal noted that the Department's application was an attempt to reargue the case and seek a review of the interim order, which is not permissible under law. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to rectify an order under s. 254(2) is limited to correcting manifest and apparent mistakes, not for reviewing the order.

2. Whether the AO's Actions Constituted Perjury:
The assessee contended that the AO committed perjury by suppressing the fact that an alternative remedy was available and had been availed of by filing an application u/s 254(2). The Tribunal observed that the AO's actions and assertions, including the claim that the bank guarantee was returned on 8th April 2013, were factually incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the AO's conduct, including the collection of funds in violation of the stay order, was high-handed and arbitrary, and such actions could not be justified as bona fide.

3. Whether the Tribunal's Interim Order was Justified:
The Department argued that judicial propriety required the Tribunal to await the final order before directing a refund. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that no such argument was advanced during the hearing leading to the interim order. The Tribunal emphasized that the interim order was passed to address the high-handed actions of the Department in collecting funds in violation of a valid stay order. The Tribunal concluded that the Department's attempt to seek a review of the interim order was not permissible under law and dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the Department.

---