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: Whether the Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the earlier appellate order on the ground of a typographical mistake and absence of the underlying order in the record was maintainable and deserved to be allowed.
Analysis: The application was moved under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for correction of the earlier order passed under section 254(1). The Revenue demonstrated from the TRACES portal and the order under section 154 that the demand related to late filing fee under section 243E, and the assessee did not controvert the factual position. The record showed that the earlier order had incorrectly referred to an appeal against an order under section 272A(2)(k), and the Tribunal treated this as a typographical mistake in the body as well as on the first page of the order.
Conclusion: The mistake was accepted as warranting recall of the earlier order, and the Miscellaneous Application was allowed in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The earlier appellate order was recalled and the appeal was directed to be listed afresh before the regular bench.
Ratio Decidendi: A demonstrated typographical mistake in an appellate order, when supported by the record and not controverted, may be rectified by recalling the order under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
