TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was required to consider the Revenue's reference application on the question whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the assessee's rectification application beyond the time limit under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the High Court was required to consider the Revenue's reference application on the question whether there was a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's original order.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court was required to consider the Revenue's reference application on the question whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the assessee's rectification application beyond the time limit under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The question whether the Tribunal's later order could be questioned on the ground of limitation under section 254(2) was a question of law arising from the Tribunal's order and was fit for consideration in reference proceedings. The High Court could not refuse reference merely by treating the issue as not arising.
Conclusion: The question had to be referred to the High Court for decision.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was required to consider the Revenue's reference application on the question whether there was a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's original order.
Analysis: The existence of a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's original order, especially in the context of the law prevailing when that order was made, was also a question of law requiring examination by the High Court in reference jurisdiction. The High Court erred in declining to direct reference.
Conclusion: The question had to be referred to the High Court for decision.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's refusal to direct reference was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to state the case on both questions for the High Court's consideration, resulting in relief to the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: A question of law arising from a Tribunal's order, including whether rectification was time-barred or whether the original order suffered from a mistake apparent from the record, must be referred under section 256(2) when properly raised and cannot be refused by the High Court on the footing that it does not arise.
TaxTMI 
