TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of Orissa in the case of Murali Manohar Prabhudayal Vs. State of Orissa (1920) 26 STC Page 22 at 25 that no material should be accepted without being tested. It is also the law that the authority is bound to disclose to the assessee any material adverse to the assessee which he is going to utilize against the assessee (C.S.T. Vs. Ram Naravan.Sitararn, 37 STC 591). 3) Ignoring to consider the various case laws cited on behalf of the appellant particularly in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orissa Stevedores Limited of ITAT, Cuttack Bench 16 ITR (Trib.) 431 CTK together with a Plethora of other case laws of different High Courts, Supreme Court and co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case Shantilata Godawat Vs. ACIT, 126 TTJ (Jodh) 135 is a mistake apparent on record. 4) The Jodhpur Bench of Tribunal held that the assessment order though passed on 28th December 2007, it was dispatched to the assessee on 2nd January 2008. The Tribunal in the said case held that the last date of passing the order being 31st December 2007, the assessment order served on 2nd January, 2008 were beyond the period of limitation a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said letter of the petitioner assessee contractor had written the entire facts which was also referred in course of hearing of the appeal on 16.02.2017 8) That the only point which was pending was only for verification of the records and evidence regarding date of services of the order u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 on point of limitation. 9) The case law of co-ordinate bench of tribunal regarding general presumption under General Clauses Act. that the Govt. documents cannot be questioned in the absence of substantial evidence was not the issue. The issue is the case law laid down by Honourable S.C. in the case of B. J. Shelat that an order takes effect only on communication in prescribed time. 10) That in the course of hearing, comparable case in the case of Mangalam Timbers Product Ltd where in reliance was placed in the ratio of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Malbar Industrial company Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 in support of the argument on merit with regard to factual aspect that the order of the assessing officer is not at all erroneous, which is one of the ingredients required for invoking jurisdiction u/s.263 of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the maintainability of the merits of the appeal and for that a decision of the same Cuttack Bench in the case of Mangalam Timber was cited which is a part of Paper Book submitted. Therefore, it is a mistake of both facts and law apparent from the record which the tribunal is empowered to rectify u/s. 254(2) of the IT. Act, 1961. Case Laws: i) Laxmi Electronic Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, CTR 1992, Pg-39-138, 188 ITR 398 (All) 18) That in this case the factual mistake is so apparent and glaring that it becomes necessary to correct the same. Citation: i) Champalal Chopra Vs. State of Rajasthan, 177 CTR (Raj.) 234 ii) CIT Vs. Mithalal Ashok Kumar, 158 ITR 755 (MP) 19) That non disposal of ground No.3 by the Tribunal also is mistake apparent from the record Case Law: i) Mohan Meakin Ltd. Vs. ITa (2004) 84 DJ (Del)(TM) 20) That Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of L. Hirday Narain Vs. ITO 78 ITR 26 (SC) has held, the power to rectify the order of assessment conferred on the Income tax officer by sec. 35 is to insure that injustice to the assessee or to the revenue may be avoided. It is implicit in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n unusual manner for the reasons best known. Whereas the petitioner has been done grave injustice on the same points of limitation. 27) That the order passed contrary to the judicial discipline is a mistake apparent from liable to be rectified u/s 254 (2) of the IT. Act, 1961. PRAYER In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited above on the point in issue, there being a mistake apparent on record the same may kindly be rectified u/s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 restoring the matter for rehearing and for this act of your kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. 3. The main arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee before us that the appeal of the assessee was wrongly dismissed by the Tribunal without considering the grounds raised by the assessee in Form No.36. It was also submitted by the ld. AR that the on the date of hearing of the appeal, he had argued the case both on merits as well as on the point of legality of action of Pr.CIT u/s.263 of the Act. However, the Tribunal decided the appeal of the assessee on merits but grund No.1 was not adjudicated in the order dated 10.05.2018. Accordingly, ld. AR submi....