TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration, There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the records. Writ Petition dismissed accordingly - W.P. (C) No. 17738 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 28-9-2010 - P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Ramesh Cherian John for the Appellant. P.K.R. Menon and Jose Joseph for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P9 order passed by the second respondent Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ext P10 concurring order dated the same day, passed by the Accountant Member and also Ext.P14 order dismissing Exts.P11 to P13 applications for 'rectification of the errors' filed under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. 2. The sequence of events is as follows: The petitioner is an assessee on the files of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was only vague and hence interference was made in respect of the said year as well. 3. However with regard to the remaining years, it was observed by the Tribunal that the there was lack of materials to decide the issue and accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with a specific direction to consider the matters separately, as specifically observed in paragraph 19. Pursuant to Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal, the matter was re-considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax who passed Ext. P4 order observing that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in respect of the assessment year 1998-99 were the same as in respect of the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. After referring to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal was very much contrary to the verdict already passed by the Tribunal as borne by Ext. P3 and that it was not correct or proper to have taken a different view, being a Co-ordinate Bench, the assessee preferred Exts.P11 to P13 applications for rectification, stating that there was error apparent on the face of the records. The said petitions were considered by the second respondent and they were dismissed as per Ext. P14 order, holding that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the records, so as to invoke the power under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 5. The respondents have filed a statement seeking to sustain the course and procedure pursued by the Department as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal, having taken a view already, vide Ext.P3, in respect of the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 and further since the reasons stated for re-opening the assessment in respect of the subsequent years having been declared as the same, on appreciation of the factual position by the Commissioner, it was no more open for the Tribunal to have taken a deviation and to have arrived at a different finding as per Exts. P9/P10, than the one already arrived at vide Ext.P3, which according to the petitioner is not in conformity with the settled principles of law declared vide CIT v. Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. [2003] 131 Taxman 705 (Ker.). 7. Coming to the merits of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner/assessee in respect of the years 1998-99 to 2000-01 were also allowed; which in turn were subjected to challenge by the Revenue, by filing Exts.P5 to P7 Appeals before the second respondent. It was during the pendency of the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal, that the Apex Court passed the verdict as Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.'s case ( supra ) based on which, Ext. P9 order was passed, upholding the reasons stated by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment and thus remanding the matter after allowing the appeals preferred by the respondents for fresh consideration of merits by the Commissioner of Appeals. In Ext.P10 order, though the Accountant Member of the Tribunal has observed that the decision rend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
