AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioenr. Sri S.P. Kesarwani, appears for the respondents.
In this Income Tax Appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench dated 17.6.2011, whereby the Tribunal rejected the application of the appellant u/s 254 of the Act, for rectification of its order dated 22.7.2010. The appellant has filed an Income Tax Appeal Defective No. 154 of 2011 against the judgment of the ITAT.
It is submitted that the appellant cited judgment of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case, which was referred to by the Tribunal in para 8.1 of its order dated 22.7.2010, but there was no discussion of the judgment in the order.
We are unable to accept the submission that the failure of the ITAT to discuss a judgment in the order would be a ground on which an application for rectification can be filed u/s 254 (2) of the Act.
Section 254 (2) of the Act reads as follows:-
(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer:
Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this. sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
If the appellate tribunal mentions a citation, and does not consider it necessary to discuss the same, the appellant may have a ground to challenge the order, but an application for rectification for that purpose will not be maintainable.
This Income Tax Appeal against the order rejecting the application for rectification is misconceived. It will be open to the appellant to take the ground and urge it along with other grounds available to him, in the pending regular appeal.
The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.