Tribunal recalls orders due to mistaken tax assessment, directs fresh hearing based on CBDT Instructions.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's miscellaneous applications, recalling the earlier orders based on a mistaken tax effect assessment. It held that the CBDT Instructions should have been considered, recognizing the tax effect exceeded Rs. 1 lakh. The appeals were directed to be heard afresh, allowing both parties to present their cases on merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of appeals filed by the Revenue with a tax effect less than Rs. 1 lakh.
2. Applicability and interpretation of CBDT Instructions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals.
3. Whether there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record justifying the recall of the Tribunal's orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Appeals:
- The Revenue filed appeals in cases where the tax effect was less than Rs. 1 lakh. The assessee objected, citing CBDT Instruction No. 1979, dated 27th March 2000, which set a monetary limit of Rs. 1 lakh for filing appeals. The Tribunal initially dismissed these appeals as unadmitted, following the CBDT's policy to reduce litigation.

2. Applicability and Interpretation of CBDT Instructions:
- The Departmental Representatives argued that the CBDT Instructions (Nos. 1979, 1985, and 6/2003) were not considered by the Tribunal during the initial hearing. They contended there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record and requested a recall of the orders to decide the appeals on merits.
- The Departmental Representative emphasized that the right of appeal is a statutory right and cannot be overridden by CBDT Instructions. He cited the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nirmala L. Mehta vs. CIT, which supports this view.
- The CBDT Instructions were discussed in detail. Instruction No. 1979 set the monetary limit, while Instruction No. 1985 clarified that the limit applies to each case individually. Instruction No. 6/2003 further clarified that "monetary limit" and "tax effect" should be read as "revenue effect," including tax, interest, penalty, fine, or any other sum involved.
- The Tribunal acknowledged these clarifications and recognized that the tax effect in the present cases, including interest, was more than Rs. 1 lakh.

3. Mistake Apparent on the Face of the Record:
- The Tribunal considered whether the initial dismissal of the appeals, based on the mistaken assumption that the tax effect was less than Rs. 1 lakh, constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record.
- It was noted that the Departmental Representative had inadvertently admitted the lower tax effect during the initial hearing. The Tribunal found that this mistake should not benefit the assessee at the cost of the exchequer.
- The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents supporting the view that a mistake apparent from the record can be rectified under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961. It emphasized that the primary aim of legal policy is to do justice and correct any errors of law or fact.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal concluded that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the appeals based on an incorrect tax effect. It held that the clarificatory Instruction No. 6/2003 should have been considered.
- The Tribunal decided to recall the impugned orders and directed the Registry to fix the appeals for regular hearing, allowing both parties to present their cases on merits.
- The miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue were allowed, and the appeals were to be heard afresh.

Final Order:
- The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue, recalling the earlier orders and directing the appeals to be heard on merits.

---