TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1058
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') passed in M.A. No. 9/CHD/2014 in ITA No. 825/Chd/2011. 2. As per the appellant, following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal:- i) Whether the ITAT has erred in passing the impugned order after going beyond the jurisdiction and is to that extent bad in law. ii) Whether the learned ITAT while deciding the miscellaneous application has erred in not considering an order dated 04.09.2013 passed by the President, ITAT directing the cases of assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 to be transferred from Chandigarh Bench to Amritsar Bench, which clearly substantiate the contention of the department and also goes to the roo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2015. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction with regard to the case of the assessee-society as it was based at Moga and the same falls within the jurisdiction of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal. It was urged that the order passed was without jurisdiction and the Tribunal erred in dismissing the miscellaneous application filed by the appellant. He further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang vs. State of Maharashtra, 1987 AIR (SC) 535. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee-society supported the order of the Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nawasahahr and Kapurthala of Punjab. State of Jammu & Kashmir. 10. From the above, it is evident that the appeal ought to have been heard by the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal. 11. The contention raised by learned counsel for the assessee lacks merit. Section 254(2) as on statute book at relevant time is reproduced below :- "The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the end of the month in which the order was passed, 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: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by a Court which had no competence to hear the matter, it being a matter of total lack of jurisdiction . The accused was entitled to be heard by at least two learned Judges constituting a Division Bench and had a right to claim a verdict as regards his guilt or innocence at the hands of the two learned Judges. This right cannot be taken away except by amending the rules. So long as the rules are in operation it would be arbitrary and discriminatory to deny him this right regardless of whether it is done by reason of negligence or otherwise. Deliberately, it cannot be done. Negligence can neither be invoked as an alibi, nor can cure the infirmity or illegality, so as to rob the accused of his right under the rules. What can be done only by a....