Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 846 2009 SLD 846 (2009) 319 ITR 135
Madras High Court
WRIT PETITION Nos. 18693 AND 18694 OF 2006, OCTOBER 21, 2009
R. SUDHAKAR, J.
K. Subramanian for the
Respondent.

Dr. S. Panneerselvam

v.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Law:

Section:

Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal - Power of - Assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85 and 1987-88 Successive application for rectification of original order cannot be maintained as it will defeat object of section 254(2) [In favour of revenue] Any order passed under section 254(2) either allowing amendment or refusing to amend gets merged with the original order passed. The order as amended or remaining unamended is the effective order for all practical purposes. The same continues to be an order under section 254(1). That is the final order in the appeal. Successive application for rectification of the original order cannot be maintained as it will defeat the object of section 254(2). Section 254(2), provides for rectification of any mistake apparent from the order passed by it under section 254(1). Once this has been done, no further application is maintainable. Thus, where a second petition was filed for rectification of mistake after two years stating that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not properly considered by the Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, rectification of the order was sought for, the rectification application was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. K. Subramanian for the Respondent. JUDGMENT R. Sudhakar, J. - Both the writ petitions are filed to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for records in M.P. No. 92/2003 (38/Mds/2001 in I.T.A. Nos. 2501/Mds/1993) and M.P. No. 92/2003 (38/Mds/2001 in I.T.A. Nos. 2502/Mds/1993), respectively, on the file of the second respondent and quash the orders dated December 26, 2005, and direct the second respondent to dispose of the claims for rectification of the order passed in I.T.A. No. 2501/Mds/1993 and I.T.A. No. 2502/Mds/1993. 2. When the matters were listed on October 19, 2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the Department/first respondent present and the matter is taken up and disposed of on the merits. 3. On going through the orders which are under challenge, it is found that the original orders were passed by the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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