9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue against the order dated 14th March, 2012 passed by the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) while the impugned order dated 14th January, 2015 dismissed the Miscellaneous Application for rectification/recall of the impugned order dated 30th August, 2013 i.e. in effect seeking a revival of the order dated 14th March, 2012. 2. The Petitioner had been assessed to tax relating to Block Period from 01.04.1996 to 18.02.2003 by the Assessing Officer. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)] upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. In further appeal before the Tribunal, it was the Petitioner's contention that jurisdiction to assess it under Section 158BC read with Section 158BD of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f notice to the petitioner. It found that the assessment in case of the searched person i.e. SAPL was completed on 28th February 2005 while notice to the Petitioner, was issued on 20th April 2004 i.e. before completion of proceedings, in case of the searched person i.e. SAPL. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal by its order dated 30th August, 2013 recalled its order dated 14th March, 2012 inter alia holding that it had committed a mistake inasmuch as it has given a finding that the impugned satisfaction of the Assessing Officer being not recorded during the course of the assessment proceedings of SAPL without ascertaining the date of completion of said proceedings. 4. On receipt of the Tribunal's order dated 30th August 2013 recal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng out that the recall application of the Revenue is not maintainable. It was also submitted that the entire basis of recalling the order dated 14th March 2012 by order dated 30th August, 2013 was that the satisfaction was not recorded in the case of the person searched i.e. SAPL but recorded in the Petitioner's case. In the above view, it is submitted that the order of the Tribunal dated 30th August 2013 be recalled as it had proceeded on a factually erroneous basis. 7. We find that the Petitioner before the Tribunal in it's appeal had taken up a stand that the satisfaction had not been recorded during the course of assessment proceedings in respect of the person searched i.e. SAPL. This is evident from para 7 of order dated 14th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudice is being caused to the Petitioner in attending hearing before the Tribunal and arguing the matter on merits. The Tribunal has withdrawn it's order dated 14th March 2012 as stated in it's order dated 30th August 2013 for a mistake committed by it while passing order dated 14th March 2012. One more fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the period to file an appeal from the order dated 14th March, 2012 to this Court under Section 260A of the Act has long expired. Thus allowing the Petition at this late stage in the present facts may lead to injustice as it would revive the order dated 14th March, 2012 against which an appeal would be time barred. This of course, is not the basis for rejecting the Petition which we have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
