| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 2257 2005 SLD 2257 (2005) 274 ITR 83 |
Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi
A.A.R. No. 609 OF 2003 FEBRUARY 2, 2005
JUSTICE SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, CHAIRMAN AND K.D. SINGH AND A.S. NARANG, MEMBER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
A.A.R. No. 609 OF 2003 FEBRUARY 2, 2005
JUSTICE SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, CHAIRMAN AND K.D. SINGH AND A.S. NARANG, MEMBER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Instrumentarium Corpn., In re
Law:
Section:
Section 245V of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 19 of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedure) Rules, 1996 - Authority for advance ruling - Procedure of - Applicant earlier filed application before authority seeking ruling on three questions framed by him - Applicant filed petition praying authority to rectify its earlier ruling made on its application on ground that it suffered from a mistake apparent from record as question No. (iii) sought to be answered in application, was reframed by authority without there being any request of or consent by applicant or by its authorised counsel - Whether since in main application Authority pointed out to applicant that question No. (iii) was more paraphrase than a question and first limb recorded factual basis and second question represented real question to which he had conceded and, accordingly, question was reframed which was part of proposed question, there was no mistake apparent from record in ruling of authority which could be rectified under rule 19 - Held, yes FACTS The instant petition was filed by the applicant praying the authority to rectify its earlier ruling made on its application on ground that it suffered from a mistake apparent from record. The applicant stated that question No. (iii) sought to be answered in application, was reframed by the authority without there being any request of or consent by the applicant or by its authorised counsel. HELD From a plain reading of rule 19(1), it is evident that the authority is empowered to amend any order subject to the conditions that- (1)There must be a mistake apparent from the record in the order sought to be rectified; and (2)Rectification of such a mistake can be made before the ruling pronounced by it is given effect to. In regard to the first condition, it was stated that without the consent of the applicant or its authorized counsel question No. (iii) was reframed and a ruling was pronounced in respect thereof. There could be no doubt that if the authority pronounced the ruling on reframing a question which was in substance different from the one proposed by the applicant without the request or the consent of the petitioner, the order…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492