Pawan singhal, Delhi V. DCIT CC-3, New Delhi

MA 494/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4652 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: S C GARG

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH FRIDAY NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G . BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.494/D/2009 ( I.T.A. NO.1898/D/07 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 SHRI PAWAN SINGHAL, VS. DY. CIT, D-145, ASHOK VIHAR-I, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI. NEW DELHI PAN NO.AATPS 8133M (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.C. GARG, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, SR. DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL: AM: IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED A CONSOLIDATE D ORDER IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS.1916 AND 1897 TO 1901/D/20 07 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2003-04 ON 19 TH MAY, 2008. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER IN I.T.A. NO.1898/D/07 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 BY WAY OF MA NO.117/D/2009. THIS APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED ON 1 7.04.2009. THE ASSESSEE MOVED ANOTHER APPLICATION DATED 07.09. 2009, REQUESTING FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER. 2 2. THE LIMITED ISSUE WHICH WAS DISCUSSED IN THE COU RSE OF HEARING ON 14.05.2010 IS WHETHER AN ORDER U/S 254(2 ) CAN BE RECTIFIED? THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAN TED A SYMPATHETIC CONSIDERATION IN THE MATTER. ON THE OT HER HAND, LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE RECTIFICATION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED U/S 254(2), WHICH RELATES TO ONLY THE REC TIFICATION OF ORDERS PASSED U/S 254(1). 2.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. SUB SECTION (2) OF SEC TION 254 READS AS UNDER:- (2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, WITH A VIEW TO RE CTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AMEND ANY ORD ER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE B Y THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER : 2.2 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION ITSELF THAT ONLY ORDERS PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) ARE AMENAB LE TO RECTIFICATION AND NOT ORDERS PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTI ON(2) OF 3 SECTION 254. THEREFORE, WE CONCUR WITH THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ORDER IS NOT AMENABLE TO RECTIFICATION AS REQUESTED FOR. 3. IN RESULT, THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. 4. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14.05 .2010 SOON AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- ( A.D. JAIN ) ( K.G. BANSA L ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DT.14.5.2010 NS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A), NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).