Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the ITAT exceeded jurisdiction by invoking s.254(2) to rectify its earlier order on the basis of a subsequent SC decision. The Court held s.254(2) permits correction only of a mistake apparent from the record as it stood when the original order was rendered, and a later judicial pronouncement does not constitute such a mistake. Accordingly, the HC quashed the ITAT order passed under s.254(2) and restored the original position, finding no error apparent on the record when the Tribunal's initial order was delivered; the AO's intimation under s.143(1) and the disallowance under s.36(1)(va) remain unaffected.
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the ITAT exceeded jurisdiction by invoking s.254(2) to rectify its earlier order on the basis of a subsequent SC decision. The Court held s.254(2) permits correction only of a mistake apparent from the record as it stood when the original order was rendered, and a later judicial pronouncement does not constitute such a mistake. Accordingly, the HC quashed the ITAT order passed under s.254(2) and restored the original position, finding no error apparent on the record when the Tribunal's initial order was delivered; the AO's intimation under s.143(1) and the disallowance under s.36(1)(va) remain unaffected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
