Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
''The Tribunal may, at any tinie 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 if under sub section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessed or the assessing officer."
6. It is evident from the above that the power available to the Tribunal is not in the nature of a review as is understood in legal parlance. The power is limited to correction of mistakes apparent from the record. What is significant is that the section envisages amendment of the original order of the Tribunal and not a total substitution thereof. That position is fairly well settled by two decisions of this court in Ms. Deeksha Suri v. ITAT (1998) 232 ITR 395 (Del) Karan & Co. v. ITAT (2002) 253 ITR 131 (Del). This court has in both these decisions hold that the foundation for the exercise of the jurisdiction lies in the rectification of a mistake apparent from the record which object is ensued by amending the order passed by the Tribunal the said power does not, however, contemplate a rehearing of the appeal for a fresh disposal. Doing so would obliterate the distinction between the power to rectify mistakes and the power to review the order made by the Tribunal. The following passage from the decision of this court in Karan & Co. (supra) elucidates the difference between review and rectification of an order made by the Tribunal :
"The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. We shall first deal with the question of the power of the Tribunal to recall an order in its entirety. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under section 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned. Any order passed under section 254(2) either allowing the 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. An order under section 254(2) does not have existence de hors the order under section 254(1). Recalling of the order is not permissible under section 254(2). Recalling of an order automatically necessitates rehearing and readjudication of the entire subjectmatter of appeal. The dispute no longer remains restricted to any inistake sought to be rectified. Power to recall an order is prescribed in terms of r. 24 of the IT (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and that too only in cases where the assessed shows that it had a reasonable cause for being absent at a time when the appeal was taken up and was decided ex parte. This position was highlighted by one of us (Justice Arijit Pasayat, Chief Justice) in CIT v. ITAT (1992) 196 ITR 640 (Ori). Judged in the above background the order passed by the Tribunal is indefensible, "