TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order if the appeals fall in any of the exceptions referred to in the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. The Department has mentioned that this case falls under the exceptions category specified in Para 10(c) of Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 and therefore, seeks recall of the order of the Tribunal. 2. The learned Counsel for the assessee, however, points out that this M.A is filed by the Revenue after the due date as prescribed u/s 254(2) of the Act and therefore, it is barred by limitation and has to be dismissed as such. 3. The learned DR, however, submitted that since the case falls in the exceptions referred to in the above CBDT Circular, a lenient view may be taken and the appeal may be recalled for hearing. 4. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed on 6 August 2012. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the application under Section 254(1) of the Act would be the only provision under which an application could be made for recall of an order, as under Section 254(2) of the Act only the order can be rectified but cannot be recalled. We find that there is an error apparent on record and the miscellaneous application is to correct the error apparent from the record. The consequence of such rectification application being allowed may lead to a fresh hearing in the matter after having recalled the original order. However, the recall, if any, is only as a consequence of rectifying the original order. It is pertinent to note that Section 254(2) of the Act does not prohibit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Tribunal in its original order while dismissing the Stock Exchange (assessee's) appeal overlooked binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court. This mistake was corrected by the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the rectification of an order stands on the fundamental principle that justice is above all and upheld the exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Act by the Tribunal in recalling its earlier order dated 27 October 2000. Thus recall of an order is not barred on rectification application being made by one of the parties. In these circumstances, the application would be an application for rectification of the order dated 6 December 2007 and would stand governed by Section 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders." This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible, for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining a decision of Court." Further the Supreme Court in Sneh Gupta v/s. Dev Sarup (2009) 6 SCC 194 has observed "We are concerned herein with the question of limitation. The compromise decree, as indicated herein before, even if void was required to be set aside. A consent decree as is well known, is as good a....