Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 1105 2007 SLD 1105 (2007) 289 ITR 191
Kerala High Court
O.P. No. 30403 OF 2000-T, JULY 4, 2006
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
P.K. Ravindranatha Manon and George K. George for the Applicant. M. Pathrose Mathai, Amicus Curie

Commissioner of Income Tax , Cochin

v.

Law:

Section:

Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 34A of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - Appellate Tribunal - Powers of - Whether even assuming application filed under section 254(2) by departmental authorised representative is defective, still if same discloses matters relevant under section 254(2), Tribunal is bound to exercise its power under said section - Held, yes FACTS The departmental representative representing the revenue filed a rectify-cation application under section 254(2) before the Tribunal seeking rectification of certain mistakes in the appellate order. The assessee raised objections stating that the application was not maintainable for the reason that it was signed by the departmental representative and not by the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the Tribunal held that a rectification appli-cation under section 254(2) should be signed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the said application. On writ : HELD Section 254(2) does not provide that an application is a must from the side of the assessee or the Assessing Officer to exercise the power under it. It appears to be a power which inhers in all Courts and Tribunals to correct any apparent mistake in its order. Here, the said power has been expressly conferred by a statutory provision. So, if a mistake is noticed by the Tribunal, either suo motu or on application of either of the parties, it may rectify it under section 254(2). If a genuine mistake is pointed out in a defective application by one of the parties, still the Appellate Tribunal cannot shirk its responsibility in rectifying the apparent mistake in the records. The said section does not provide that there should be an application in the prescribed manner. Therefore, the prescription contained in rule 34A made apparently in exercise of the power conferred on the Appellate Tribunal under section 255(5) cannot curtail the sweep of the powers of the Tribunal under section 254(2). Therefore, the exercise of power under section 254(2) is not dependent upon the validity of the application submitted by the party concerned. If the jurisdictional pre-conditions contemplated under section 254(2) are present, 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