Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Smt.Indu Sunilkumar,, Kottayam vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal8 May 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The power conferred on the Tribunal by section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act is confined to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record, and a direction given by the Tribunal in its earlier order does not fall within that category; accordingly, a miscellaneous petition seeking modification of such a direction on that basis is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALCOCHIN BENCH, COCHINBEFORE S/SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JM and B.R.BASKARAN, AMM.P. Nos.120& 121/Coch/2014(Arsg. out of I.T.A. No.54 & 55 /Coch/2013)Assessment Years : 2006-07 and 2008-09The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Smt. Indu Sunil Kumar,Income-tax, Central Circle, Sravanam,Kottayam. Power House Road,Thiruvalla.[PAN: AGPPS 4558L]

(Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent)

Revenue by Shri M. Anil Kumar, CIT(DR) and Shri K.K. John, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri K.I. John, CA

Date of hearing 08/05/2015 Date of pronouncement 08/05/2015

ORDER

Per B.R. BASKARAN, Accountant Member:

The Revenue has filed these Miscellaneous Petitions against the impugned

order dated 08-08-2014 passed by the co-ordinate Bench in I.T.A. Nos.

54&55/Coch/2013 relating to assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09.

2. The Ld. DR submitted that the above said order was passed by the

Tribunal in respect of the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the revision 2 M.P. Nos.120 & 121/Coch/2014

order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal, after

having confirmed the revision order in para 8, has remanded the issue relating to

the addition of Rs.28,05,000/- to the file of the Assessing officer for deciding the

said issue afresh. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing officer had already

passed the assessment order consequence to the revision order, by the time the

order of the Tribunal was passed. He further submitted that the assessee was

given sufficient opportunity during the course of assessment proceedings.

Accordingly, he submitted that the order of the Tribunal may be modified

suitably.

3. On the contrary, the Ld. AR submitted that the power given to the

Tribunal u/s. 254(2) of the Act is restricted to rectify mistake apparent from

record. He further submitted that the direction given by the Tribunal will not fall

under the category of mistake apparent from record.

4. Having heard rival contentions, we find merit in the submissions of the Ld.

AR. The direction given by the Tribunal will certainly not fall under the category

of mistake apparent from record as contemplated u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Under

these circumstances, we do not find merit in the present Miscellaneous Petitions

filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we reject them. 3 M.P. Nos.120 & 121/Coch/2014

5. In the result, both the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the Revenue are

dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 08-05-2015

sd/- sd/-

(DURGA RAO) (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: Kochi Dated: 8th May, 2015 GJ Copy to:

1. Smt. Indu Sunil Kumar, Power House Road, Thiruvalla-689 101.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Kottayam.

3. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Kochi.

4. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kottayam.

5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Cochin Bench, Cochin.

6. Guard File.

By Order

(ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., Cochin

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free