TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... – Apparently, the second petition filed for rectification appears to be one intended to bridge the long delay in not challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated November 27, 2000, and the rectification order dated April 25, 2001. The writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of failure to pursue the alternative remedy and also on the ground of delay and laches, which has not been explained. - Both the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed - 18693 and 18694 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2009 - R. SUDHAKAR J. No appearance for the petitioner. K. Subramanian, for the respondent. JUDGMENT 1. R. SUDHKAR J.- Both the writ petitions are filed to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for records i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 17 of 2001 was disposed of by this Tribunal on April 25, 2001, in relation to I. T. A. Nos. 2457 and 2458 of 1993 and 2501 and 2502 of 1993 for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1987-98. Hence, this is the second M. P. by the assessees for the years 1984-85 and 1987-88. As per section 254(2), the Tribunal has no power to pass order in M. P. on M. P. This view is also supported by the judgment of the hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. ITAT [1992] 196 ITR 640. Accordingly, the M. P. is dismissed." 5. On going through the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, it is clear that the writ petitioner has at the first instance filed an application M. P. No. 17 of 2001 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce de hors the order under section 254(1). Recalling of the order is not permissible under section 254(2). Recalling of an order automatically necessitates rehearing and readjudication of the entire subject-matter of appeal. The dispute no longer remains restricted to any mistake sought to be rectified. Power to recall an order is prescribed in terms of rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and that too only in cases where the assessee shows that it had a reasonable cause for being absent at a time when the appeal was taken up and was decided ex parte." (emphasis supplied). 9. No doubt, in the above case, the question was whether the Tribunal can recall the order in its entirety exercising the power under section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of the petitioner for the simple reason that if the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal on appreciation of the materials on record, the remedy available to the writ petitioner/assessee will be to file an appeal as provided under the statute and not challenge the same by way of writ petitions stating that the Tribunal should have decided the matters in one way or the other as intended by the assessee/writ petitioner. As against the order passed under section 254(1) and the rectification order passed under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, there is an appeal remedy provided under section 260A(1) of the Act and such remedy has not been exhausted by the present writ petitioner. Apparently, the second petition filed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
