TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n short, the Tribunal). 2.The appellant, i.e., the Revenue, is aggrieved by the fact that the Tribunal has, vide, the impugned judgment recalled its order dated 18.04.2013, passed in miscellaneous petitions, i.e., M.P.Nos.133 to 136/Mds/2014, preferred by the Assessee. 3.A perusal of the record would show, that it is in common ground, that the order dated 18.04.2013, was passed by the Tribunal suo motu, without it being triggered, either based on an application filed by the Revenue or the Assessee. 4.To be noted, by virtue of the order dated 18.04.2013, the Tribunal recalled its earlier orders, dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008. 4.1.Via the said orders, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the Revenue, evidently, on the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by Mr.Ravi, was that, the order of recall, though suo motu, was an order, based on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Electronics Corporation of India Limited case. 9.As against this, learned counsel for the Assessee submits that no interference is called for, with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, for the reason that, it is common ground, that the Tribunal in passing the order dated 18.04.2013, had acted on its own, without noticing the affected party, that is, the Assessee. 9.1.The submission being that the order dated 18.04.2013 was passed, in complete breach of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, by virtue of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal corrected that error. 10.This apart, the learned cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for assessment year, AY 1997-98, was rejected, as no approval was obtained from COD, while appeal for assessment year AY 1998-99, was dismissed in limine, as approval for filing an appeal, was refused by COD. (v)Insofar as assessment years AY 2000-01 and AY 2003-04, are concerned, the note submitted by the Revenue, does not elaborate specifically, as to why, appeals were dismissed. (vi)The petition filed by the Revenue, before the Tribunal, which is dated 20.11.2015, however, adverts to the fact, that appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years, AY 1997-98, AY 1998-99, AY 2000-01 and AY 2003-04, were dismissed, for want of COD approval. (vii)The Tribunal suo motu recalled orders dated 20.08.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 15.01.2013, were never pressed before the Tribunal, prior to its recall order dated 18.04.2013. The said petitions were brought up, before the Tribunal only on 29.07.2016. 16.3.The record would show that the said miscellaneous petitions were numbered by the Tribunal only in 2013. 16.4.The numbers accorded to these miscellaneous petitions, were: M.P.Nos.224/Mds/2013, 225/Mds/2013 and 226/Mds/2013. 16.5.As would be evident from the numbers set out above, for one assessment year, no petition appears to have been filed. 17.As is evident from the facts narrated above, in the meanwhile, the Assessee had filed and pressed, instead, its miscellaneous petitions bearing numbers: M.P.Nos.133 to 136/Mds/2014 - for recall of order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia, (2008) 1 SCC 125). 21.1.Besides the aforesaid, in our opinion, a clear perusal of Section 254 (2) of the Act, would show that the Tribunal has been vested with the power, to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, both on its own, and also, when a mistake is brought to its notice, either by the assessee or the Revenue. In both cases, the limitation prescribed under the said Section would apply. 22.In order to fully appreciate what we have indicated above, it is necessary, for us, to extract the relevant parts of Section 254 of the Act: "254 (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. (2) The Appellate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., by use of the expression may, at any time in the first limb as against and shall in the second limb. 24.As indicated above, qua both situations, the prescribed period of limitation was four years in respect of the assessment year(s) in issue. 24.1.To be noted, with effect from 01.06.2016, the period of limitation has been reduced to six months from the end of the month, in which, the order was passed. The amended period is, admittedly, not applicable in the facts of the instant case. 25.This apart, the proviso, to our minds, has a role to play in the present matter. 25.1.The first proviso clearly indicates, that any amendment made to the order which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or increasing t....