CIT, Patiala V. Young Scholars Educational Society, Barnala

MA 2/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9252 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO. 2/CHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.510/CHD/2010) THE CIT, PATIALA V YOUNG SCHOLARS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BARNALA (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI ASHOK KHANNA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING: 14.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.10.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS MOVED BY T HE APPLICANT FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16 .7.2010 IN ITA NO. 510/CHD/2010. 2. THE REVENUE VIDE PARAS 1 TO 4 AT PAGES 1 TO 5 OF THE AFORESAID M ISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAD RAISED VARIOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE O RDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL AND HAS ALSO RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS FOR FILING THE PRESENT MISCELLNEOUS APPLICA TION. THE REVENUE- APPLICANT VIDE PARA 5 HAD PRAYED AS UNDER: ` 5 IT IS, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL BE PLEASED TO RE-CONSIDER ITS EARLIER DECI SION DATED 16.7.2010 PASSED IN ITA NO. 510/CHD/2010 IN THE CAS E OF M/S YOUNG SCHOLARS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BARNALA IN LIGH T OF THE GROUNDS TAKEN HEREIN PARA 4 ABOVE AND DECIDE THE CA SE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT/REVENUE. THE APPLICANT ALS O CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS BEFORE THE APPLIC ATION IS FINALLY HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUN AL. 3. THE PERUSAL OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE REVENUE-APPLICANT AND AS PRAYED FOR IN PARA 5 OF TH E SAID APPLICATION, 2 REFLECT RE-ARGUMENT OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CAPT IONED APPEAL BY THE REVENUE-APPLICANT, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 4. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE AC T, THE TRIBUNAL ON AN APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, IS EMPOWERED TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RE CORD. THE MISTAKE TO BE RECTIFIED SHOULD BE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE SAID MISTAKE/S COULD BE RECTIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE EXERCISING ITS P OWER ENSHRINED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ERROR WHICH IS NOT SELF EVIDENT OR WHICH IS TO BE DETECTED BY THE SERIES OF PROCESS, I S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF T HE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT ORDER DATED 16.7.2010 WAS PASSED AFTER DETAILED DELIBERATION OF THE ISSUE RAISED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MISTA KE BEING POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE-APPLICANT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL, NO POWER VESTS WITH THE TRIBUNAL TO RECONSIDER ITS EARLIER DECISIO N AND RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE GARB OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE REVE NUE-APPLICANT AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 4 TH OCTOBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3