- (1.) By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the judgment & order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the revenue and set aside the order of the CIT(A) which has allowed the appeal preferred by the original assessee (Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd.) an assessing firm which was assessed by the department pursuant to the contract entered between the department and the Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company registered in Israel, through two separate contracts the State Government of Rajasthan and Gujarat awarded the contracts in the field of water resources planning in their respective states. The entire liability of Indian Income-tax was under taken to be borne and paid by the respective departments of the State Government. At the time of entering into the contracts, double taxation avoidance treaty between Government of India and Israel did not exist. Both the State Governments, deposited income-tax on the technical services fees paid to the assessee who is a foreign company. The assessee furnished its return of income offering the tax at concessional rate of 10% prescribed under the double taxation avoidance agreement which came into force on 15/5/96. The assessee appended notes to the statement of total income of Indian operations of the assessee which was filed with the return of income showing Income from other sources for the period ended 31/3/97.
(3.) While admitting the matter this Court has framed the following issues:- "i). Whether the ITAT was justified in law in having refused to rectify its earlier order dated 31/7/2002 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case ii) Whether the ITAT was justified in law in having taken the view that the humble appellant, acting as authorised signatory of M/s. TCE or as an authorised representative, did not have the requisite locus standi to move and maintain an application under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act in respect of the errors apparent on the face of its order dated 31/7/2002. iii) Whether the ITAT was justified in not having removed the typographical and clerical errors as also its uncalled for direction to the Revenue to carry out proceedings in the name of TCE apparent on the face of the order dt. 31/7/2002";