Tribunal revisits order, schedules hearing to address crucial assessment legality issue.

The Tribunal recalled its order due to the non-adjudication of a specific ground concerning the legality of the assessment framed under sections 144/147 of the Act. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of rectifying mistakes that may prejudice any party and scheduled a hearing solely for the unaddressed ground. Relying on the principle of ensuring justice between parties, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's application, emphasizing the need to uphold legitimate rights and adopt a fair and just approach in quasi-judicial proceedings.

---

---

Issues involved:
Recalling of Tribunal's order due to non-adjudication of specific ground regarding the validity of assessment framed under sections 144/147 of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee requesting the recalling of the Tribunal's order in relation to the non-adjudication of a specific ground concerning the legality of the assessment framed under sections 144/147 of the Act. The counsel for the assessee contended that no notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued, which, according to the proviso to section 144, is essential before framing an assessment. The counsel argued that the absence of a show cause notice rendered the assessment bad in law. The Tribunal acknowledged that the said ground was not adjudicated and decided to recall the order specifically for this ground, scheduling a hearing solely for ground no. 2. The decision was based on the principle that every quasi-judicial authority has inherent powers to ensure justice between parties and rectify mistakes that may prejudice any party. The judgment cited the case of Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT to emphasize the importance of adopting a justice-oriented approach and rectifying errors in orders to uphold the legitimate rights of parties involved.

The counsel for the assessee relied on the aforementioned case law to support the argument for recalling the order based on the unadjudicated ground. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, concluded that ground no. 2 raised by the assessee was indeed not addressed in the previous order. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application of the assessee and pronounced the order in open court, directing the registry to schedule a hearing specifically for ground no. 2. The decision highlighted the fundamental principle that no party should be prejudiced due to mistakes in the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the need for a fair and just approach to rectify errors and uphold the principles of justice in quasi-judicial proceedings.

---