TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee were dismissed in limine without proceeding on merits. Therefore, there is a mistake apparent on record and consequently the impugned order of the Tribunal may be recalled for giving an opportunity to the assessee for hearing and deciding the appeals on merits. It has been explained that the assessee is a 73 year old lady and does not have access to internet and other modes of communications to seek information such as date of hearing etc., and since the assessee did not receive notice of hearing of the appeal on 07.04.2016, therefore, the assessee could not communicate the date to the representative to appear before this Tribunal. The learned AR has thus pleaded that the reasons for not appearing are beyond the control of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the 52[Assessing] Officer: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: 53[Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub-section on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees.] 4. The time period within which the mistake apparent from record can be rectified has been reduced from 4 years to 6 months by the amendment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the extent of the provision provided in the special statute. We find that prior to the amendment the limitation for rectification of mistake was 4 years as provided under section 254(2) and therefore there was no question of providing any provision or power to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay after the expiry of such 4 years of limitation. However, in the amended provisions of the Act under section 254(2), the limitation for rectification of mistake apparent from the record has been drastically reduced from 4 years to 6 months and in case of a delay in applying for rectification of mistake apparent from record, the party who is aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal suffering from mistake will be subjected to a g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the record. It does not empower the Tribunal to recall its earlier order dated December 6, 2007, for which the miscellaneous application was filed on August 6, 2012. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the application under section 254(1) of the Act would be the only provision under which an application could be made for recall of an order, as under section 254(2) of the Act only the order can be rectified but cannot be recalled. We find that there is an error apparent on record and the miscellaneous application is to correct the error apparent from the record. The consequence of such rectification application being allowed may lead to a fresh hearing in the matter after having recalled the original order. However, the rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Revenue carried the matter in appeal to the apex court which also dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The apex court observed that the Tribunal in its original order while dismissing the stock exchange (assessee's) appeal overlooked the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court. This mistake was corrected by the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the rectification of an order stands on the fundamental principle that justice is above all and upheld the exercise of power under section 254(2) of the Act by the Tribunal in recalling its earlier order dated October 27, 2000. Thus, recall of an order is not barred on rectification application being made by one of the parties. In these circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passage Lord Radcliffe said: 'An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable at legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead.. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders.' This must be equally true even where the 'brand of invalidity' is plainly visible : for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining a decision of the court." Further, the Supreme Court in Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup [200916 SCC 194 has observed: "We are concerned herein with the question of limitation. T....