TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of ITA No. 1672/PUN/2017 dated 24-02- 2020 for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In this Misc. application, the Revenue has stated as under : 1. The Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue in MA NO. 971 PUN/2021 (Arising out of ITA No. 1672 PUN/2017) by Order dated 21/06/2022, on the incorrect observation that "6. Now, the department has filed the present Misc. Application seeking rectification of order of the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal has wrongly presumed that in any case where there is an addition of more than Rs. 10 lakhs in a case selected under CASS prior written approval is needed from concerned CIT ", whereas the Department had filed the said Miscellaneous Application on the ground that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... well as Hon'ble High Court expounding scope of exercising powers under section 254(2) of the Act. We do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. For fortifying this view, we make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue is not maintainable as there is no provision in the Act to allow filing of Misc.. application against an order passed by the Tribunal in Misc. application filed by the assessee. Hence, Misc. application moved by the Revenue is dismissed." 7. We also find that Delhi Special Bench decision in M.A. No. 57/Del/2010 (in M.A No. 402/Del/2009) (in M.A. No. 05/Del/2008 for A.Y. 1995-96 arising out of ITA No. 2964/Del/2002, in the case of Shri Padam Prakash (HUF) Meerut Vs. I.T.O. Ward 2(1), Meerut, held as follows: 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is true that sub-section (2) of Section 254 can be invoked only in a situation if there is a mistake in the order passed by the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as under: "254. Orders of Appellate Tribunal. - (1) The Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. (2) The Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-s. (1) and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the AO;......." The aforenoted provisions of law are clear and unambiguous. A bare reading whereof leaves no doubt in our mind that the Tribunal is competent to rectify a mistake apparent from the record and amend any order which has been passed under sub-s.(1). Admittedly,....