TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. No. 43/Jp/98 whereby the order passed in IT(SS)A. No. 11(Jp)/97 on 29th June, 1988, was recalled considering the apparent mistake therein in not deciding the ground No. 34 raised by the assessee relating to the issue which was going to the root of the matter. The Revenue s plea is that there is no provision in law which enables the Tribunal to revise its earlier order and as such there is a mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed in IT(SS)A. No. 11(Jp)/97. Accordingly the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dt. 20th Sept., 1999, in M.A. No. 43/(Jp)/98. Against this order, the Department preferred an appeal before the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court which came up for hearing before the Divisional Bench of the Hon ble High Court in IT Appeal No. 9 of 2000. It was plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecall the order and decide the case afresh or to decide that issue after affording an opportunity of hearing to parties concerned and pass a fresh order in the light of finding on such issue. The Hon ble High Court also observed that the recalling of an order for correcting an apparent mistake in procedural aspect cannot be equated with review and held that where a Tribunal fails to notice a quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... too on the very same ground. In the case of CIT vs. Amritlal Bhogilal Co. (1958) 34 ITR 130 (SC), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that as a result of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the Tribunal by the appellate authority, the original decision merges in the appellate decision and it is the appellate decision alone with subsists and is operative and capable of enforcement. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal passed in M.A. No. 43(Jp)/98, dt. 20th Sept., 1999, not being available for rectification due to the same having merged in the appellate order of the Hon ble High Court, we find the miscellaneous application of Revenue seeking rectification of the said order of the Tribunal, dt. 20th Sept., 1999 to be not tenable in law. The same is, therefore, rejected at the threshold. 5. In the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
