2018 (3) TMI 966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned order dated 2nd December, 2016 of the Commission, allowed the application of the Respondent No.2­Assessee, seeking partial re­call the earlier order dated 25th July, 2016 passed under Section 245 D(6B) of the Act. This on the ground that the order dated 25th July, 2016 on the principal issue (not a typographical error) amounted to a Review of the order dated 27th June, 2016 passed under Section 245D(4) of the Act. The impugned order dated 2nd December, 2016 of the Commission is a split verdict and the application was allowed by a majority of 2:1 of the members of the Commission. 2. Briefly, the facts leading to this Petition, are that the Petitioner, had for Assessment Year 2013­14 alongwith other Assessment Years ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act in place of Rs. 12.23 Crores as returned in the revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the Act. 4. This led the Respondent­Assessee to file another application on 24th August, 2016 under Section 245D(6B) of the Act, seeking to correct the figures of returned income as modified in the final order dated 27th June, 2016 in view of suo motu rectification by order dated 25th July, 2016. Thus, seeking the restoration of the earlier figures at Rs. 12.23 Crores as filed under Section 139(5) of the Act instead of Rs. 21.90 Crores as filed under Section 139(1) of the Act in the final order dated 27th June, 2016 under Section 245D(4) of the Act. 5. The Commission aft....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctional aspect referred to and considered in the majority view, but only considered the claim on merits. 6. We note that the basic issue arising before the Tribunal was essentially of jurisdiction i.e. the scope and ambit of an rectification application under Section 245D(6B) of the Act. The majority view addressed the issue and found that the earlier order dated 25th July, 2016 to the extent it suo motu rectified the order dated 27th June, 2016 by substituting the disclosed income as mentioned in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act instead of the income mentioned in the revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, was bad. Moreover, it was also passed without hearing the parties in breach of the second pro....