|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5391 (Rkt-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Filling of a miscellaneous application again after dismissal of miscellaneous application is generally not permissible under section 254(2) for there cannot be any M.A. for rectification of the order on an order passed under section 254(2).
Appeal (ITAT) order - Rectification of mistake - Filling of Miscellaneous Application for rectification of the order on an order passed under section 254(2) -
Arising out of scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), the AO passed a rectification order under section 154 which was contested favourably before CIT(A) by the assessee. Aggrieved, revenue went in appeal on this point to ITAT who dismissed the case citing that the tax effect was below the appellate threshold limit. On this, the Revenue moved a Miscellaneous Application (MA) which was also dismissed by ITAT holding that the Revenue failed to point out any error under section 254(2) in the said order. On this dismissed MA, (M.A. No. 15/RJT/2016) revenue again applied for a MA (M.A. No. 24/RJT/2020) contending that there were certain audit objections, which is why the appeal should not have been dismissed in the first place and it fell in the exception for admittance of appeal, irrespective of threshold of tax impact. Held: The original assessment being a scrutiny assessment; then to call for a MA on departmental audit objections itself was incorrect, besides the fact that MA on MA would generally not be permissible, unless even in the MA, it was an apparent mistake on the face of record.
REFERRED : Mentha & Allied Products Co. (P) Ltd v. ITAT (2000) 244 ITR 470 (Del-HC) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 1032 (Del-HC), CIT v. Ideal Engineers (2001) 251 ITR 743 (AP-HC) : 2001 TaxPub(DT) 1562 (AP-HC) and CIT v. ITAT, (1992) 196 ITR 838 (Ori-HC) : 1992 TaxPub(DT) 0990 (Ori-HC).
FAVOUR : Against the revenue
A.Y. : 2007-08
IN THE ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT