2012 (9) TMI 663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ard Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. Shri Ashish Bansal appears for the respondent-assessee.   2. This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.6.2000, by which the Tribunal found that the two appeals namely ITA Nos.1112 (Alld)/92 an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the two appeals. 4. The Income Tax Appeal has been preferred on the following substantial questions of law as follows:- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not deciding the Department's appeal by treating it infructuous being duplicate? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted during the hearing of these appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. On receiving information regarding these defects/mistakes from the Authorised Representative of the Department at Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Assessing Officer made an application on 11.05.2000 to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal requesting for removal of defects and condonation of delay. The Assessing Office....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o consideration the application dated 11.5.2000, for correction of the mistake. 8. We also find that the Tribunal was not correct in observing that the department had filed copies of the appeals (appeals in duplicate). The department had challenged two different orders one passed under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, and other under Section 154 of the Act, separately. At best the memo of appeal....