TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - SUPREME COURT] Tribunal had in exercise of its powers under section 254 (2) of the Act had recalled its earlier order as it had by mistake not considered a binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court. This recall by the Tribunal was upheld by the Apex Court on the fundamental principle of law that no prejudice should be caused to either of the parties appearing before the Tribunal by its decision based on a mistake apparent from the record. The Apex Court negatived the contention that such recall of an order would amount to review of its earlier orders. The Supreme Court held that mistake is a valid reason to recall an order. In the circumstances,the objections of the petitioner that the impugned order recalling the order dated 29th December 2010 is without jurisdiction is not sustainable. We find that the impugned order after correctly holding that there is an error apparent from the record recalling its earlier order dated 10th December 2010 proceeded further to make observations on the scope of the satisfaction dated 21st August 2000. In fact the concluding paragraph of the impugned order seeks to suggest that the issue of jurisdiction is decided and it is only on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 10th December, 2010. This is particularly so as the revenue had consented when the appeals were originally heard to the petitioner making its submissions under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules in the absence of having filed a substantial appeal. - WRIT PETITION NO.162 of 2015 & WRIT PETITION NO.150 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2015 - M.S. SANKLECHA AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. For the Appellant : Dr. K. Shivram Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh And Ms. Neelam Jadhav For the Respondent : Mr. N.C. Mohanty ORDER P. C. At the request of counsel, both the Petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. These two Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge a common order dated 17th October, 2014 passed under section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') allowing the application for rectification filed by the Revenue. The common impugned order dated 17th October 2014 was passed on two applications seeking to rectify a common order dated 29th December 2010 dismissing two ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving considered the revenue's submission with regard to recording satisfaction under section 158 BD of the Act; and (B) In the alternative and without prejudice to the above, the impugned order when recalling order dated 29th December, 2010 for fresh consideration cannot decide the issue on merits so as to foreclose the issue for the regular bench of the Tribunal before whom the appeal is to be posted for rehearing and disposal. 7. On the other hand, Mr.Mohanty learned counsel appearing for the revenue submits in support of the impugned order as under : (A) Order dated 29th December, 2010 proceeded on a fundamental error to the extent it proceeds on an admitted position that there was no satisfaction recorded under section 158 BD of the Act in respect of the petitioner. Thus, the rectification application under section 254 (2) of the Act was the only remedy available to the revenue to correct the order dated 29th December, 2010; and (B) The impugned order dated 17th October, 2014 calls for no interference as it is open to the petitioner to present its point of view before the Tribunal when the matter is heard by the bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its earlier orders. The Supreme Court held that mistake is a valid reason to recall an order. In the circumstances,the objections of the petitioner that the impugned order recalling the order dated 29th December 2010 is without jurisdiction is not sustainable. 10. The next submissions made in the alternative by the petitioner is that when the impugned order recalls its earlier order dated 29th December, 2010 and places the matter before another Bench to be considered afresh, it is not open to the Tribunal in the impugned order to decide any of the issues touching the merits including jurisdiction and thereafter place the matter before a regular bench for disposal. This placing of the matter before the regular Bench would become academic in respect of those matters which have already been dealt with by the Tribunal in an impugned order recalling the earlier order. 11. We find that the impugned order after correctly holding that there is an error apparent from the record recalling its earlier order dated 10th December 2010 proceeded further to make observations on the scope of the satisfaction dated 21st August 2000. In fact the concluding paragraph of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
