UZIND CORPORATION Vs. ITO
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
R.C. Sharma, A.M. -
(1.) THIS is a miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee under Rule 34A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 to rectify/recall the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31-7-2007 passed in TDS Appeal No. I.T.A. No. 2684/ Delhi/06 for the financial year 2005-06.
(2.) In the miscellaneous petition, the assessee has submitted that there are various mistakes in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which needs to be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act. It was also submitted that as per the proceedings going on in the court room, at the time of hearing of the appeal, the assessee has formed the opinion that decision has been pronounced in assessee's favour in the open court, whereas it has been decided against the assessee. It was also alleged that agreement dated 15-3-2002 as referred by the Commissioner (Appeals) was already in the record of the assessing officer whereas Hon'ble Bench has presumed that the said agreement was not on the record of the TDS Officer. The learned Authorised Representative also alleged that many decisions were referred to in the paper book placed on the record, but the same were not duly appreciated by the Bench. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court as relied on by the Bench at their own, which were neither cited by learned Authorised Representative nor by Departmental Representative was also alleged to be a mistake apparent from the record, as no opportunity was given to the assessee to distinguish the same. In the petition, various judgments were cited in support of the contention that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passing order taking into account information not disclosed to the assessee amounts to a mistake apparent from the record and the same deserves to be rectified by recalling the order. Accordingly, it was prayed that appellate order dated 31-7-2007 must be recalled and proper opportunity to the assessee must be given to present and meets its case.
Learned Authorised Representative also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ud. v. CIT, (2007) 295 TVL 466 (SC), where 'mit was held that failure to consider a decision of co-ordinate Bench cited by the assessee, is a mistake apparent from the record, which should be rectified by recourse of Section 254(2) of the Act.
(3.) ON the other hand, contention of the learned Departmental Representative was that all the issues have been discussed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a great detail, and there is no mistake much less a mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which can be subject-matter of jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.