https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392481 The ITAT dismissed the Department's Miscellaneous Applications, upholding its earlier decision that penalty orders were void ab initio due to the lack of prior approval from the JCIT. The ITAT clarified that typographical errors do not invalidate an order if the substance conforms to the Act, but in this case, the error was a fundamental procedural flaw. The ITAT emphasized it cannot review its own orders under the guise of rectification, citing precedents clarifying the scope of rectification under Section 254. en-us Tue, 14 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392481 The ITAT dismissed the Department's Miscellaneous Applications, upholding its earlier decision that penalty orders were void ab initio due to the lack of prior approval from the JCIT. The ITAT clarified that typographical errors do not invalidate an order if the substance conforms to the Act, but in this case, the error was a fundamental procedural flaw. The ITAT emphasized it cannot review its own orders under the guise of rectification, citing precedents clarifying the scope of rectification under Section 254. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392481