Basisth Kumar Jaiswal & Others, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faizabad

MA 17/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1485 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: A MANDEEP
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M. A NO. 17/LKW/2012 [ARISING OUT OF M.A. NO. 64/LKW/2009 IN ITA NO. 48/LUC/2005] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1 994 - 95 BASISTH KUMAR JAISWAL & OTHERS FAIZABAD V. ACIT FAIZABAD PAN: AFWPJ8184R (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) M.A. NO.18/LKW/2012 [ARISING OUT OF M. A NO. 65/LKW/2009 IN ITA NO. 49/LUC/2005] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1994 - 95 RAM DHANI JAISWAL & OTHERS FAIZ ABAD V. ACIT FAIZABAD PAN: AFWPJ6199L (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) M.A. NO.19/LKW/2012 [ARISING OUT OF M. A NO. 66/LKW/2009 IN ITA NO. 50/LUC/2005] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1994 - 95 RAM PALTAN JAISWAL & OTHERS FAIZABAD V. ACIT FAIZABAD PAN: ADLPA0225F (APP L IC ANT) (RESPONDENT) M.A. NO. 20/LKW/2012 [ARISING OUT OF M. A NO. 67/LKW/2009 IN ITA NO. 51/LUC/2005] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1994 - 95 SATISH CHANDRA PANDE Y & OTHERS FAIZABAD V. ACIT FAIZABAD PAN: AFWPJ6198M (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) : - 2 - : APP LIC ANT BY: SHRI . A MANDEEP RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. ALOK MITRA , D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 27.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.01.2014 O R D E R PER S UNIL KUMAR YADAV : THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE PREFERRED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.7.2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED IN SHORT 'THE ACT') IN M.A NOS. 64 TO 67/LKW/2009. 2 . THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS THE ASSESSEES HAVE TRIED TO POINT OUT CERTAIN MISTAK ES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.7.2012, BUT THE PRIMARY QUESTION ARISES IS WHETHER AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT CAN BE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT? IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE RELEVA NT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. AS PER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL MAY AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT. THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASS ESSEE OR THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER. FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WE FIND TH AT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IF AN ERROR OR MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IS POINTED OUT BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEES HA D E ARLIER MOVED APPLICATION S UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT POINT ING OUT CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.10.2008 PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT, BUT THOSE APPLICATIONS WERE DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. NOW THE : - 3 - : ASSESSEES ARE SEEKING RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT POINTING OUT CERTAIN MISTAKES THEREIN, BUT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED BY MOVING AN APPLICATION AND NOT THE ORDER PASSE D SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE RECTIFIED BY PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEES UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE SAME. 3 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSE ES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.1.2014. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7.1.2014 JJ: 2712 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APP LIC ANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR