https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305977 The Tribunal held that recording grounds No. 2 and 3 as not pressed was erroneous where the appeal papers only carried the remark "Not. P." and there was no signature of the assessee or authorised representative showing withdrawal. An affidavit from the director stated that no authority had been given to abandon those grounds, and the vakalatnama did not empower the representative to withdraw them. On that basis, the mistaken recording was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, and the earlier order was recalled only to the extent required for fresh adjudication of grounds No. 2 and 3. en-us Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jan 2023 21:14:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305977 The Tribunal held that recording grounds No. 2 and 3 as not pressed was erroneous where the appeal papers only carried the remark "Not. P." and there was no signature of the assessee or authorised representative showing withdrawal. An affidavit from the director stated that no authority had been given to abandon those grounds, and the vakalatnama did not empower the representative to withdraw them. On that basis, the mistaken recording was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, and the earlier order was recalled only to the extent required for fresh adjudication of grounds No. 2 and 3. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305977