9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent to dispose of the claims for rectification of the order passed in I. T. A. No. 2501/Mds/1993 and I. T. A. No. 2502/Mds/1993. 2. When the matters were listed on October 19, 2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the Department/first respondent present and the matter is taken up and disposed of on the merits. 3. On going through the orders which are under challenge, it is found that the original orders were passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on November 27, 2000, and thereafter, the petitioner filed M. P. No. 17 of 2001 for rectification in terms of section 254(2) of the Income-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second miscellaneous petition cannot be filed for rectification of the original order once over. It relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of Orissa High Court in CIT v. ITAT reported in [1992] 196 ITR 640. The Orissa High Court considering the scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, held as follows (headnote): "The scope and ambit of an application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. We shall first deal with the question of the power of the Tribunal to recall an order in its entirety. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rposes. The same continues to be an order under section 254(1). That is the final order in the appeal. In the present case, the rectification was ordered in terms of section 254(2) and it got merged with the original order passed under section 254(1). What has been refused by the Tribunal while allowing the application under section 254(2) should be read as having been rejected. There fore, the petitioner cannot file another application to grant further benefits. Successive application for rectification of the original order cannot be maintained as it will defeat the object of section 254(2) of the Act. Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides for rectification of any mistake apparent from the order passed by it under section 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
