TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel 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 and 1456 (Alld) of 1992 were identical c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al 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 Income Tax Appeal Tribunal was correct in law in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome 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 Officer also filed, along with the said application, duly co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 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 was defective for which the Tribunal should have allowed th....