TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court directs Tribunal to hear appeal, emphasizing rectifying mistakes for fair hearings.</h1> <h3>M/s Binaguri Tea Company Pvt Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Kolkata</h3> M/s Binaguri Tea Company Pvt Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Kolkata - [2016] 389 ITR 648 Issues:Challenge to refusal of jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.Analysis:The case involved a challenge to the refusal of jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant had applied under section 254(2) to rectify an error apparent on the face of the record after the appeal was dismissed based on the appellant's letter expressing a lack of desire to press the appeal. The appellant contended that the dismissal was based on a mistake as they were unaware of a judgment by the jurisdictional High Court that changed the view on the applicability of Income Tax Rule-8 to fringe benefit tax. The High Court considered whether the power under section 254(2) could be exercised in the case of a mistake apparent on the part of the litigant or their advisors.The Court noted that the mistake in this case was not solely on the part of the Tribunal but also on the part of the appellant and their advisors. The Tribunal was unaware of the judgment that changed the legal position, which led to the mistaken dismissal of the appeal. The Court held that the case fell within the purview of section 254(2) as it allows for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record, even if not solely committed by the Tribunal. Citing a precedent, the Court emphasized that justice should not be denied due to mistakes made under legal advice.The Court, therefore, set aside the order under challenge and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits. Acknowledging the prolonged duration of the case, the Tribunal was instructed to prioritize the matter for resolution. The judgment highlighted the importance of rectifying mistakes that may have led to unjust outcomes and ensuring that litigants have the opportunity for a fair hearing based on the correct legal position.In conclusion, the High Court's decision focused on the application of section 254(2) in cases where mistakes are made by litigants or their advisors, emphasizing the need for fairness and rectification of errors to uphold the principles of justice in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 