For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

the decision given by it in the appeal was correct but because the Coordinate Bench decision was not mentioned or discussed, the entire order was recalled and the appeal was directed to be heard afresh. When on the one hand the Tribunal says that its decision was correct, we fail to understand why and how the Tribunal had recalled the said correct order. Firstly, if the order was correct, there was no reason or necessity for recalling such correct order. Secondly, we find that the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that non-consideration of the Co-ordinate Bench decision was a mistake apparent from the record. As already pointed out above, there was no averment in the miscellaneous application by the respondent / assessee that it had pointed out or argued the Co-ordinate Bench decision relating to the block assessment during hearing of the appeal and that the Tribunal did not consider the same. Thirdly, we are of the view that having regard to the order passed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, no prejudice has been caused to the respondent / assessee. All that the Tribunal had done was to restore the matter to the file of the assessing officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law in which the respondent / assessee would have ample opportunity to place all the materials at its command before the assessing officer for consideration. 31. In the light of the discussions made above, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in passing the impugned order dated 05.01.2009. Accordingly, the said order is hereby set aside and quashed. Rule is made absolute. 32. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 254 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Rectification of Mistake— Respondent was HUF and an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 16.06.1998 in the residence-cum-office premises of assessee and his associates. In the course of the search proceeding, it was found that assessee had issued certain cheques after depositing cash received from the said persons. Assessee admitted and explained that he was a Hawala operator and accepted cash deposits in bank account while issuing cheques for the said amount to the party; in the process, he earned commission for carrying out such Hawala business. Block assessment for the period 01.04.1988 to 16.06.1998 was carried out by the assessing authority under Section 158BD of the Act. At the same time, for the assessment year 1999-2000, assessee filed return of income. The return was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Following the assessment proceedings, assessing officer passed assessment order dated 26.03.2002 under Section 143(3) of the Act adding some amount to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. Assessee assailed the said assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the appellate proceedings, the first appellate authority agreed with the explanations given by assessee and directed deletion of the said addition.Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.Consequently, the tribunal set aside the order of the first appellate authority and the matter was restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh consideration. Assessee filed an application before the Tribunal for recall of the order. Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application by recalling the order for hearing the appeal afresh. Revenue filed writ petition. the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 05.01.2009.
Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in passing the impugned order dated 05.01.2009. Accordingly, the said order was set aside and quashed. Rule was made absolute. Writ petition was disposed of. --- CIT vs. RONAK PARIKH (HUF).[2020] 23 ITCD Online 94 (BOM)