TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') allowing the application for rectification filed by the Revenue. The common impugned order dated 17th October 2014 was passed on two applications seeking to rectify a common order dated 29th December 2010 dismissing two appeals of the Revenue on quantum and penalty for block period 1.4.1988 to 17.12.1988. 3. By the impugned order dated 17th October, 2014 in exercise of its powers under section 254 (2) of the Act recalled the common order dated 29th December, 2010 passed under section 254 (1) of the Act relating to the Block period 1st April, 1988 to 17th December, 1988 both in quantum and penalty proceedings. Thereafter the impugned order dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admittedly no satisfaction was recorded resulted in an error apparent on record warranting rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act. 6. Dr.Shivram learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the petition submits as under : (A) The impugned order is without jurisdiction as there is no error apparent on record in the order dated 29th December, 2010 as the same was passed after having considered the revenue's submission with regard to recording satisfaction under section 158 BD of the Act; and (B) In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, the impugned order when recalling order dated 29th December, 2010 for fresh consideration cannot decide the issue on merits so as to foreclos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an admitted position that no satisfaction under section 158 BD of the Act was recorded so as to vest jurisdiction in the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. The evidence of satisfaction being recorded is communication dated 21st August, 2000 addressed by the Assessing Officer of the person searched to the Assessing Officer of the petitioner. The petitioner also does not dispute communication dated 21st August, 2000 which is being relied upon by the revenue was a part of the record but submit that the same was considered by the Tribunal before passing the order dated 29th December, 2010. Therefore, we find no fault in the impugned order concluding that there was an error apparent on record in the order dated 29th December, 2010 as it does n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order to decide any of the issues touching the merits including jurisdiction and thereafter place the matter before a regular bench for disposal. This placing of the matter before the regular Bench would become academic in respect of those matters which have already been dealt with by the Tribunal in an impugned order recalling the earlier order. 11. We find that the impugned order after correctly holding that there is an error apparent from the record recalling its earlier order dated 10th December 2010 proceeded further to make observations on the scope of the satisfaction dated 21st August 2000. In fact the concluding paragraph of the impugned order seeks to suggest that the issue of jurisdiction is decided and it is only on meri....