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>Application for Rectification Dismissed under IT Act - Order Deemed Final</h1> <h3>BANSAL TRADING CO. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.</h3> BANSAL TRADING CO. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - TTJ 076, 234, Issues Involved:1. Whether there was a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order dated 23rd Dec., 1997, that warranted rectification under section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Alleged Mistake Apparent from RecordContentions of the Assessee:- The assessee argued that the Tribunal's order dated 23rd Dec., 1997, contained mistakes that needed rectification under section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961.- The main argument was that the Tribunal did not consider the explanation that the note book containing entries was found at the residential premises of Bhagwan Dass, who was a partner in multiple firms dealing in Karyana items.- The assessee claimed that the Tribunal ignored the argument that the note book could not be linked to the appellant-firm.- It was contended that the Tribunal's written order differed from the oral observations made during the hearing, where it was allegedly stated that there was no connecting material between the income and the appellant.Contentions of the Department:- The Department argued that the Tribunal's powers under section 254(2) are limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and do not extend to reviewing the order.- It was emphasized that the Tribunal's order did not suffer from any apparent mistake justifying its review.- The Department contended that the Tribunal had duly considered the arguments of both parties and had made a valid order under section 254(1).- It was also argued that there was no evidence to support the claim that the results of the appeals were announced in open court.Tribunal's Findings:- The Tribunal reviewed the original records and found no indication that the results of the appeals were announced in open court.- It was noted that the order became final on 23rd Dec., 1997, when it was signed by both members of the Bench.- The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in ITAT vs. V.K. Aggarwal & Anr., which held that an order becomes final when signed by all members of the Bench and communicated to the assessee and CIT.- The Tribunal found no force in the argument that the written order differed from oral observations.- It was concluded that the Tribunal had decided the appeals after proper appreciation of the facts and material on record, and no apparent mistake was found that needed rectification.- The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court's judgment in Ms. Deeksha Suri & Ors. vs. ITAT & Ors., which clarified that the power to rectify does not extend to rewriting an order affecting the merits of the case.- The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., which held that there is no provision in the IT Act for the Tribunal to review its own order.Conclusion:- The Tribunal held that the application for rectification was without merit and dismissed it.- The same rationale was applied to a similar miscellaneous application involving a different quantum of penalty, leading to its dismissal as well.Final Judgment:- Both miscellaneous applications were dismissed as the Tribunal found no apparent mistake from the record that warranted rectification under section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
