TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this order of the Tribunal on its earlier application under S.254(2) of the Act. Since such a review, whether in the context of original order dated 22.3.2013 or order in MA dated 27.1.2014 is not permissible in these proceedings for rectification under S.254(2) of the Act, we find no merit in the present application of the assessee, which is accordingly rejected. Maintainability of the present application against the order rejecting the earlier application, and so on, the same has no application to the facts of the present case, in which assessee is merely disputing the conscious view taken by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal, and for other reasons discussed hereinabove. We accordingly reject the present application of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - Misc. Appln. No. 51/Hyd/2014, MA No. 214/Hyd/2013, ITA No. 979/Hyd/12 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2014 - B. Ramakotaiah, AM And Asha Vijayaraghavan, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri I. Rama Rao For the Respondent : Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram DR ORDER Per Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan, Judicial Member: By this Miscellaneous Application, assessee seeks rectification of the order this Tribunal dated 27.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bounden duty of the court to undo the wrong done to the party. Reliance in this behalf is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh and ors. V/s. Devi Ratan and Ors; (2010) 1 SCC 417(SC) and in Kalabharati Advertising V/s. Hemant Vimaljath Narichania and Ors.(2010) 9 SCC 437. It is also submitted placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S. Nagaraj V/s. State of Karnataka(1993) Suppl. (4) SCC 595 that the Tribunal has an inherent power to cure any miscarriage of justice. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.S. Ahlawat V.s State of Haryana (2000) 1 SCC 278, wherein setting aside the orders passed by it earlier observing that To perpetuate an error is no virtue but to correct is a compulsion of judicial conscience. Detailed written submissions have also been filed by the learned counsel for the assessee, reiterating these submissions, placing reliance on various judicial pronouncements, duly extracting relevant portions thereof. 4. Learned Departmental Representative on the contrary, strongly opposed the above submission of the assessee, and submitted that there is no mistake apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly seeking a review of the order passed in earlier MA, whereby assessee s plea for rectification of the order passed under S.254(1) dated 22.3.2013 was rejected, on the ground that what was being sought was a mere review and not rectification of any obvious and patent mistake apparent from record. 6. Even though the learned counsel for the assessee has raised a plea that an order dated 27.1.2014 passed on a Miscellaneous Application filed under S.254(2), merges with the original order dated 22.3.2013 passed under S.254(1) of the Act, we do not find merit in such a plea. It is only an order passed under S.254(2) of the Act which rectifies the earlier order passed under S.254(1), which merges with the order passed under S.254(1) and not the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application for rectification under S.254(2) of the Act. In the context of the analogous provisions of S.256(1) which contemplates reference of a question of law arising out fo the orders of the Tribunal passed under S.254(1) of the Act, Hon ble A.P. High Court, besides examining the scope of rectification contemplated under S.254(2) of the Act, also examined/rejected the maintainability of an application o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for determination of the matter afresh after due verification of the material on record and the arguments of the assessee in that behalf. It is the case of the assessee that since all the material is available on record, the Tribunal itself should have decided the matter, instead of restoring the matter for fresh determination of that issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. It is the prerogative of the Tribunal whether to determine the issue by itself till its logical end, or to set aside set the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain direction for appropriate decision after due verification. The Tribunal may exercise its discretion in that behalf, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of material on record before it and verification thereof, if any, warranted at the level of Assessing Officer. Assessee, by this application, is merely disputing the course adopted by the Assessing Officer in restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. It is in this view of the matter, the Tribunal in its order dated 27.1.2014 has rejected the earlier MA of the assessee, being MA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
