TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (7) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment made under Chapter XIVB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By reason of the order of recall, the set aside block assessment revives. If instead of hearing the writ, a stay is granted, it will completely freeze assessment proceeding until further steps are taken. This is not a desirable course, as the matter, if the details are grasped, is really very short, usual and simple. After the Tribunal passed its order in April, 1998, an Explanation was added to the Income-tax Act in Chapter XIVB to section 158BA and under that Explanation regular assessments for all years in the block period are also required to be made. In regard to the regular assessment for one particular assessment year in the block period of the same assessee, an earlier wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et aside, has been revived ; the direction given in my earlier judgment that the regular assessment will be made within six months of completion of the block assessment is also rendered inoperative because my judgment assumed a future block assessment to be made in accordance with the Tribunal's views given in its order dated April 22, 1998. Mr. Bajoria, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under section 254(2), the Tribunal can make amendments or rectifications which are obvious and which do not involve debate or dispute. He referred to the case of CIT v. Swadeshi Commercial Co. Ltd. [1992] 106 CTR 122 (Cal) also the case of CIT v. E. Sefton and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 435 (Cal). He also said that the powers of the Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s own order in its entirety, Mr. Mallick gave the case of CIT v. Uttar Pradesh Shoe Industries [1999] 235 ITR 663 (All). It is an Allahabad Division Bench judgment. There the Tribunal had disposed of a particular ground No. 5 in the memorandum stating that relief in that regard had already been given by the Income-tax Officer acting under section 154. This appeared later to be erroneous because the section 154 application has been rejected. In these facts, the Tribunal set aside its order with regard to ground No. 5 and restore the appeal in the file for hearing on this point. The High Court found nothing wrong with this procedure as it appeared to be the only way to set the mistake right. Mr. Mallick submitted on this basis that this decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground of appeal where there had been no real hearing in the first place at all. It is conceivable, if section 254(2) were to clothe the Tribunal with a power of total recall that it decides in one way, then recalls the order and an absolutely different decision is reached on a second hearing after equally protracted arguments. This would be neither amendment nor rectification but a type of rehearing which even ordinary courts of law can hardly indulge in. Regarding the point of section 260A, in my opinion, an appeal would not be permissible from any and every order passed by the Tribunal under this section. If, say, an order of adjournment is passed, the assessee could not come in appeal to the High Court under section 260A. There are ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tirety of the period, that is in accordance with my earlier judgment also. This ordering portion needed no rectification and no amendment. In the reasoning portion a mistaken view is no doubt on record that regular assessment for separate assessment orders included within the block period will be obviated by the block assessment ; but this was mere reasoning. The Tribunal was not entitled under section 254(2) to rectify or amend any reasoning of it which did not affect the correctness of its final order. Thus, in one manner of speaking, to try to avoid a small evil, the Tribunal has fallen into a greater one. In my opinion, although the Tribunal's impugned order needs correction, it obviously proceeded bona fide and with the best of moti....