SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Alok Mathur, Advocate for appellant and Sri Mudit Agarwal, Advocate respondent.
(2.) Both these appeals filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1961"), relate to same Assessment Year, i.e., 2000 -01, based on same facts, involve common questions of law, therefore, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(3.) Appeal No. 35 of 2009 has arisen from judgment and order dated 05.12.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in Misc. Application No. 119 and 120/Luc/2008, arising out of I.T.A. No. 218/Luc/2005 and was admitted on following substantial questions of law: "I. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is empowered under Section 254(2) of I.T. Act to recall its order finally deciding appeal for the reasons other than those dealt in under Rules 24 and 25 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. II. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in recalling its order dated 21.09.2007 without appreciating that issues raised in Misc. Applications are outside the scope of mistake apparent from record. III. Whether under the facts and in circumstances, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in recalling their order dated 21.09.2007 without appreciating that recalling of order necessitates rehearing, re-adjudication and passing of fresh order. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that re-adjudication is permissible within parameters of mistake apparent from record and the order dated 21.09.2007 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which stood merged in the order dated 18.07.2008 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal could have been recalled as the same stood merged in subsequent order dated 18.07.2008 and is also against the doctrine of judicial discipline.";