2017 (8) TMI 1454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Miscellaneous Applications by Reliance Communications Limited, Reliance Communications Infrastructure Limited, one by Reliance BPO Limited and four by Reliance Telecom Limited. 2 It is common ground that these Applications were heard on 13th May, 2016, but the Tribunal pronounced the order on these Miscellaneous Applications after six months and more on 18th November, 2016. 3 The contentions of the applicants in the Miscellaneous Applications, briefly summarized, were that in the initial order of the Tribunal on the Income Tax Appeals dated 6th September, 2013, there are inadvertent errors and which need to be modified/rectified. We take application at Page 221 of the paperbook since Mr. Parag Vyas learned advocate for the petitioner- Rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of these petitions at great length. He would submit that the Tribunal's order is ex-facie erroneous, illegal and without jurisdiction. In the garb of entertaining an application to consider a limited grievance within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has re-heard the appeals to arrive at a different conclusion on merits. That was impermissible in law. The ambit and scope of the power under section 254(2) is extremely restricted and limited. It is aimed at correcting obvious and apparent mistakes on the record and does not permit a re-hearing of the appeal on merits in the garb of exercising such jurisdiction. The mistakes which are not identifiable and apparent on the record cannot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich was followed, was apposite and applicable to the facts and governed it entirely. The Revenue tried to distinguish the Delhi view and by reference to the primary documents and the transaction. It is apparent that during the course of hearing, the assessees filed affidavits to support their contentions. Those contentions were equally met by the Revenue's advocate in rejoinder. The Tribunal was pursuaded and it passed a detailed order once again running into 41 pages. 9 In the circumstances, we do not think that the view taken by the Tribunal that its initial order contained some mistakes and which need to be rectified requires our interference in writ jurisdiction. If we take the objections of the Revenue as they are, they are not go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Tribunal is a mixed one. By perusing the order under challenge, we find that it could be termed as a plausible view of the proceedings. In the larger interest of justice the Tribunal felt that it must allow the assessee to contest the appeals of the Revenue which were decided by the initial order of 6th September, 2013, fully and properly on merits. A fair, just and complete opportunity ought to be granted and the assessee deserves the same. That is the conclusion of the Tribunal in the impugned order. 10 Such a conclusion, to our mind, is not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record or perversity warranting our interference in writ jurisdiction. 11 We are surprised that the initial order is passed on 6th S....