TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jain For the Respondent : Firoz B. Andhyarujina ORDER Vijay Pal Rao (Judicial Member).- These miscellaneous applications, by the Revenue are directed against the order, dated December 30, 2011, of this Tribunal whereby five appeals of related assessees for assessment year 2005-06 were disposed of. 2. We have heard the learned Departmental representative as well as the earned authorised repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M. Kariya has been set aside by the hon'ble High Court vide order dated June 24, 2014, in Writ Petition No. 126 of 2014 and, therefore, the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue have no basis and substance. The learned authorised representative has further submitted that even otherwise the issue for the assessment year 2005-06 is separate and independent from the issue involve for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of the Tribunal, dated January 30, 2013, for the assessment year 2004-05 in the case of Arvind M. Kariya. The said decision has been set aside by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide order dated June 24, 2014, therefore, the very basis of filing the miscellaneous applications by the Revenue is no more in existence. Further the Revenue has already filed the appeals before the hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reasoning on the point to be rectified. It is settled proposition of law that a patent mistake which does not require any elaborate discussion of averment or argument to be established can be said to be an error patent on the face of record and can be rectified under the ambit of section 254(2). Section 254(2) does not confer power on the Tribunal to review its order passed on the merits and in t....