2003 (12) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Power of tribunal u/s 254(2)- Tribunal is conferred with power to amend the order passed under section 254(1) of the Act if the Tribunal is satisfied that the order made under section 254(1) of the Act suffers from a mistake apparent from the record Thus the Tribunal before it exercises the power conferred on it under section 254(2) of the Act is required to refer to the materials on record which were not considered or misread which led to the passing of a patently wrong order under section 254(1) Order of tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the miscellaneous petition filed by the respondent under section 254(2) - appeal is allowed

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Correctness of the order dated March 29, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.
3. Application of section 254(2) of the Act in recalling an earlier order.
4. Legality of passing two orders under section 254(2) of the Act.
5. Mistake apparent on the record in the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the interpretation of section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning an appeal by the Revenue challenging the correctness of an order dated March 29, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The issue revolved around the application of this section to question the Tribunal's decision in a tax matter.

2. The Tribunal's order was challenged based on the correctness of the decision made in the earlier order. The facts of the case involved the transfer and sale of floors of a building and an undivided share in land, leading to disputes regarding capital gains and exemptions under the Act. The Tribunal's order was questioned for its handling of the case and the subsequent direction for a rehearing.

3. The judgment delved into the application of section 254(2) of the Act in recalling an earlier order by the Tribunal. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's procedure in passing the impugned order was illegal, as the Act does not allow for the passing of two orders. The issue raised was whether the Tribunal had the authority to recall its earlier order without a finding of a mistake apparent on the record.

4. The legality of passing two orders under section 254(2) of the Act was a significant aspect of the judgment. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order was invalid as it was passed without proper consideration of the requirements under this section. The judgment analyzed the necessity for the Tribunal to amend its earlier order only if a mistake apparent on the record was identified.

5. The judgment extensively discussed the concept of a mistake apparent on the record in the Tribunal's order. It highlighted the requirement for the Tribunal to demonstrate a clear error in its earlier decision before amending it under section 254(2) of the Act. The analysis emphasized the importance of the Tribunal's application of mind in rectifying mistakes and the limitations on recalling orders.

In conclusion, the judgment set aside the order dated March 29, 2001, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the observations made. The decision was based on the grounds of improper application of section 254(2) and the necessity for the Tribunal to rectify mistakes apparent on the record before passing an amended order.

← Previous Next →