IN RE: SEPCOIII ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION NO. 201, YUQING EAST STREET, WEIFANG, SHANDONG-261031, CHINA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application made by the applicant in AAR/1009/2010 under Rule 19 of the Authority for Advance Rulings(Procedure) Rules 1996. The applicant feels aggrieved by the order of this Tribunal declining to allow its application under section 245R(2) of the Income -tax Act and refusing to admit it for a ruling under section 245R(4) of the Act. In the order dated 25.8.2011 this authority had given its reasons to find that the application was hit by the bar contained in clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act. The applicant submits that the reasoning leading to the invocation of the bar contained in section 245R(2) of the Act is incorrect and requires to be corrected.

(2.) EVEN at the threshold, the Revenue has raised the objection that Rule 19 of the Rules is not attracted since that Rule relates only to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record or amending an order vitiated by any such apparent error. What is really sought for, is at best, a review of the order passed by this Authority and rule 19 of the Rules does not confer any such power of review. We may straightway say that there is considerable merit in this contention raised on behalf of the Revenue. But, after all, if we had made any clear mistake in passing the order on the main application, we feel that it would be proper for us to correct such a mistake. To find out whether we had made any such mistake, we permitted Senior Counsel for the applicant to argue the matter as if he were arguing an appeal against our order dated 25.8.2011, that is sought to be rectified.

(3.) AS regards the passage from the Hand Book relied on, this Hand Book itself says that it should not be construed as an exhaustive statement of law. Even otherwise, what is stated in the Hand Book cannot control the rendering of a decision with reference to the relevant provisions. We also find on a reference to the passage relied on, that it nowhere states that on a return being filed, the question cannot be said to be pending. What was referred to was an issuance of a notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Section 142 itself covers three different situations and one of them is to call upon a person to file a return of income if he had not filed a return within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act. The observations relied on, even if understood as a correct reflection of the legal position, it is confined to a situation where a notice is issued calling upon the applicant to file of a return. It does not deal with a situation where a return has been filed.