TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 901
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing as follows: "4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Act. There is also merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that the CIT (A) has no power with effect from 1-6- 2001 under section 251 of the Act to set aside the matter to the file of the assessing officer. The CIT (A) can confirm, reduce or annul the assessment order only. The Tribunal has power to set aside the orders of the lower authorities to the file of the CIT(A) or the assessing officer or decide the issue on merit. In this case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Now, the AR of the assessee wanted the Tribunal to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments before this Tribunal on earlier occasion while hearing the appeal to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer for further verification as the earlier assessment order dated 30.7.2004 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 of the Act. According to the AR, the Tribunal not adjudicated this ground and decided the issue on merit. The AR submitted that if one more opportunity is not given to the assessee, it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and he prayed to give one more opportunity to the assessee. According to him, the assessee is having all documents and papers to support the case and, he prayed that earlier order of the Tribunal is to be recalled. 4. The learned DR submitted that there is no mistake app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion i snot an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgement. The Tribunal cannot, in the exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion." 5. The DR also relied on Dharamchand Surana vs. ITO (61 ITD 115) (TM), Homi Mehta & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (63 ITD 15). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused material on record. Admittedly this is the second MA filed by the assessee which cannot be entertained u/s. 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal has rejected the first MA filed by the assessee u/s. 254(2) of the Act on the ground that there was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d." 8. The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. We shall first deal with the question of the power of the Tribunal to recall an order in its entirety. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under s. 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned. Any order passed under s. 254(2) either allowing the amendment or refusing to amend gets merged with the original order passed. The order as amended or remaining un-amended is the effective order for all practical purposes. An order under s. 254(2) does not h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 observed as under: "Under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. However, it is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the pre-requisite for exercise of either power may be similar (a mistake apparent from the record), by its very nature the power to rectify a mistake cannot result in the recall and review of the order sought to be rectified." 11. Thus the scope and ambit of application u/s. 254(2) is as follows: (a) Firstly, the scope and ambit of application of s. 254(2) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the IT Act. 12. Further, it is also pertinent to mention herein the judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Steal Cast Corporation (107 ITR 683) wherein it was held that in the order of appellate authority, the ground might not have been dealt with that point and thereby it means that it was impliedly rejected it. Being so, in view of the above judgement, it is implied that though there was no specific finding in the order of the Tribunal about ex-parte order, it is to be understood that this ground was rejected by the Tribunal so that the Tribunal considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and given the findings. If the assessee has any grievance, the remedy lies elsewhere. We also place reliance on the judg....