2006 (7) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....presentative, representing the Revenue before the Income-tax Department filed exhibit P-1 application under section 254(2) of the Act seeking rectification of certain mistakes in an appellate order. The assessee raised objections stating that the application is not maintainable for the reason that it is signed by the departmental representative and not by the Assessing Officer. Upholding the said objection, the said application was dismissed by exhibit P-2 order. Though another petition was attempted, seeking modification of exhibit P-2, the same was dismissed by exhibit P-4 order dated June 26, 2000. Hence this writ petition, challenging exhibits P-2 and P-4. The petitioner would point out that the authorised representative is competent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s out that section 254(2) does not contemplate any application of any aggrieved party. It is a power conferred on the Tribunal to correct any mistake found in its order. Anyone can bring the mistakes to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal The said sub-section reads as follows: "(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the (Assessing Officer)." In view of the above definition of the authorised representative and having regard to the sweep of section 254(2), it is submitted that even as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the side of the assessee or the Assessing Officer to exercise the power under it. It appears to be a power which inheres in all courts and Tribunals to correct any apparent mistake in its order. Here, the said power has been expressly conferred by a statutory provision. So, if a mistake is noticed by the Tribunal, either suo motu or on application of either of the parties, it may rectify it under section 254(2). If a genuine mistake is pointed out in a defective application by one of the parties, still the Appellate Tribunal cannot shirk its responsibility in rectifying the apparent mistake in the records. The said section does not provide that there should be an application in the prescribed manner. Therefore, the prescription contained i....