9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short "the Tribunal"), was justified in recalling its order dated November 16, 1989 passed in 1. T. A. No. 275/CTK of 1988 in purported exercise of its powers under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). The background facts are that the aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal was dismissed by an order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was asserted that though a copy of the order was produced by learned counsel for the assessee, the same was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal. The application was numbered as M. A. No. 15(CTK) of 1990 and, by order dated December 20, 1990, which is impugned in this writ application, the order was recalled. The primary challenge of the Department in this wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was termed as "sufficient proof", without indicating as to what constituted sufficient proof, and also how the same had any relevance to the question of applicability of section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal merely quoted the application, prayer and affidavit and abruptly came to the conclusion that it accepted the affidavit as sufficient proof. The power of amendment under section 254(2) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
