TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lay is condoned. This appeal has been filed against the order dated February 26, 2003, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E", Delhi, in M.A. No. 349/BK of 2002, for the assessment year 1994-95. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that an assessment for the year 1994-95, was made by the assessing authority showing his agricultural income for the year 1994-95 as Rs. 36,04,821. The assessing authority after considering the record estimated the agricultural income of the appellant at Rs. 5 lakhs and held that the balance amount to the tune of Rs. 31,04,821 was from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant preferred the first appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On the contrary, Shri Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, has submitted that the scope of section 254(2) of the Act is very limited and as there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant had ever furnished his changed address to the Tribunal, the question of sending the notice to him at the changed address does not arise and in a limited scope of interference under section 254(2) of the Act, as there was no error apparent from the record, the Tribunal could not recall the order dated October 25, 2002, and has rightly dismissed the application and there is no merit in the appeal, nor it raises any substantial question of law, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The Tribunal while considering t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal was justified in passing an order under section 254(2) of the Act, where the order had been passed placing reliance on a wrong provisions of law and the provisions of law under which the appeal has been decided were not attracted at all, hence rectification of the mistake was necessary and had rightly been done by the Tribunal. In the instant case the judgment in Seth Madan Lal Modi [2003] 261 ITR 49 (Delhi) has no application, as the facts are quite distinguishable. The learned Tribunal was fully justified in placing reliance upon the other referred judgments of the Delhi High Court. As the appellant could not satisfy us as to on what date the appellant had furnished the new address to the Tribunal and what has been his new add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined." Law prohibits to do something indirectly which is prohibited to be done directly. Similar view has been reiterated by the apex court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, AIR 2000 SC 1997, wherein it has been held that even the Supreme Court cannot achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly by resorting to the provisions of article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the court to pass any order in a case in order to do "complete justice." There is no pleading in the instant appeal even before this court that the appellant had ever furnished his new address to the Tribunal on which the Tr....