TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench’ of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for another year, viz. A.Y. 2006-07, was not in existence at the time when the order was passed by the CIT(A). The Ld. D.R had neither drawn our attention to any such mandate of law which requires rectification of a mistake on the basis of a subsequent order of a Tribunal, nor had placed on record any judicial pronouncement to support his aforesaid contention. - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.616/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2017 - SHRI B.R BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM For The Appellant : Shri Purshottam Kumar For The Respondent : Shri. Vijay Mehta ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-10, Mumbai, dated 29.10.2014, therein rejecting the application of the revenue seeking rectification of the appellate order dated. 23.11.2010 passed by his predecessor u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax act, 1961 (for short Act ). The revenue assailing the refusal on the part of the CIT(A) to carry out the rectification, had raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iberating on the objections raised by the assessee, rejected the application for rectification filed by the revenue. 5. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had thus carried the matter in appeal before us. That during the course of hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized representative (for short A.R ) for the assessee strongly supported the order of the CIT(A) and therein averred that the application filed by the revenue seeking rectification of the order passed by the CIT(A) was rightly rejected in the backdrop of the facts of the case read in light of the scope of the powers as stood vested with the CIT(A) u/s 154 of the Act . The Ld. A.R in order to drive home his aforesaid contention, therein relied on the order passed by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, Mumbai bench C , Mumbai in the case of : M/s Prolific Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 8(2)(4), Mumbai (M.A No. 81-86/M/2016; dated. 19.09.2016) and ITAT , Bench A , Kolkata in the case of : Global Venture Corporation, Kolkata Vs. DCIT, Circle-49, Kolkata (M.A No. 55/Kol/2012; dated. 01.06.2012), wherein though the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of : M/s Prolific Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-06, could be held to be suffering from a mistake apparent from record on the basis of a contrary view taken in the subsequent order passed by the Special bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07?. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue under consideration and are of the considered view that no infirmity can be related with the order of the CIT(A) rejecting the rectification application of the revenue, for the reason that the order passed by the Special bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 was not in existence at the time when the order in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y. 2007-08 was passed by his predecessor. We though are not oblivious of the settled position of law that an order of the Special bench of the Tribunal as per judicial discipline would have precedence as against an order passed by a division bench of the Tribunal, and if the same would had been there before the CIT(A) on the date of passing of the order, but had remained omitted to be considered by him, then the same would have clearly been a mistake apparent from record, therein rendering his order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, which view of ours stands fortified by the judgment of a Full bench of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Aruna Luthra. (2001) 252 ITR 0076 (P H)(FB), wherein the Hon ble High Court observing that proceedings for rectification of an order can be initiated on the basis of an order passed by the jurisdictional High Court or Hon ble Supreme Court subsequent to the order passed by an authority under the Act , had held as under:- 8. There is another aspect of the matter. In a given case, on interpretation of a provision, an authority can take a view in favour of one of the parties. Subsequent to the order, the jurisdictional High Court or their Lordships of the Supreme Court interpret the same provision and take a contrary view. The apparent effect of the judgment interpreting the provision is that the view taken by the authority is rendered erroneous. It is not in conformity with the provision of the statute. Thus, there is a mistake. Should it still be perpetuated ? If the contention raised on behalf of the assessee were accepted, the result would be that even though the order of the authority is contrary to the law declared by the hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
