2024 (9) TMI 1437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....It was submitted that, by these captioned orders, the appeal for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 was disposed on 15.03.2023. The appeal was heard on 15.03.2023, wherein the ld. Sr. DR had submitted counter paper books on 31.01.2023, 1.02.2023 and 2.02.2023 for relevant assessment years, enclosing copy of the reasons recorded dated 8.03.2013 and notices under section 148 dated 8.03.2013, as well as copy of bank statement of SB Account No.62510015697, apart from other documents. It was submitted that the Tribunal omitted to consider that no status is mentioned in the notice issued under section 148, dated 8.03.2013 and as such the re-assessment for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 was without jurisdiction and liable to be annulled,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on 28.03.2013 for the assessment year 2006-07 and 8.03.2013 for the assessment year 2007-08, were issued after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, was without proper sanction as required under section 151 of the Act and therefore, the proceeding for assessment year 2007-08 stood vitiated and made the consequential proceedings liable to be quashed. It was submitted that since this was a mistake apparent on the face of the record, it deserved to be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. With regard to the assessment year 2006-07, in Misc. Application No.19/Alld/2023, it was submitted that since the notice under section 148 for the assessment year 2006-07 was issued beyond a period of four year....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri. A.K. Singh pointed out that none of the issues raised in the present Misc. Applications had been raised by the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA Nos. 3,4,5 & 6/Alld/2022, either in the grounds of appeal or during the course of arguments. There was, therefore, no occasion for the Hon'ble ITAT to pronounce a judgment on such issues. Accordingly, it could not be said that there was any mistake apparent from the record in the order of the ITAT, that warranted recall of the order under section 254(2) of the Act. Ld. DR further submitted that scope of section 254(2) was very limited and the Hon'ble Tribunal could not review its own order under the garb of rectification. Accordingly, he prayed that the Misc. Applications filed may be d....