SMT. MEENA RAO,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4328/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 February 2020AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to rectify his order under Section 154. In the absence of any representation from the assessee to show the rectification order was bad in law, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s order rectifying his own previous order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The original order was passed after considering all relevant provisions, case laws, and arguments.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the CIT(A) had the power to rectify his own order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also contended that the original order was detailed and speaking, implying it shouldn't be subject to rectification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: MRS. DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 03.02.2020

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 26.05.2016 of CIT(A)-II, Gurgaon pertaining to 2010-11 assessment year is assailed on various grounds including Ground No.1 which reads as under: “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in rectifying u/s 154 of the act his own order passed u/s 250(6), which was a detailed and speaking order passed after considering all the relevant provisions of the Act, all the relevant case laws and the arguments of the Assessing Officer put forth in the assessment order.”

2.

However, at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over and in the second round also, the assessee remained un-present. Considering the facts it was seen that the appeal could be decided on the basis of material available on record. The appeal was taken up for hearing after hearing the ld. SR. DR Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam.

3.

The ld. Sr. DR inviting attention to the grounds raised submitted that the sole issue addressed in ground No. 1 to 4 is that the order of CIT(A) was not rectifiable. Referring to the impugned order attention was invited to the fact that the order u/s 154 was passed by the CIT(A) in view of the rectification application dated 27.01.2016 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act, wherein the original order dated 17.11.2015 in Appeal No.46/14-15 u/s 250 (6) was rectified. It was submitted referring para 1, 2, 2.3 and para 2.4, that the CIT(A) has considered the reply of the assessee, the assessee has been heard who has challenged that the CIT(A) could not rectify the order. The arguments it was submitted have been extracted in the order itself. The order passed has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Rajkot vs. Govindbhai Mamaiya dated 04.09.2014 and various cases. The legal proposition that rectification is maintainable has not been shown to be incorrect. It was his submission that the order passed is in accordance with law. Considering this fact that the assessee in the present proceeding, it was submitted that has not even cared to engaged any counsel as no power of attorney has been executed by the assessee. It was his prayer that the assessee has not placed anything on record to show that order was bad in law. Thus, it was his prayer that the rectification order passed by the ld. Commissioner may be upheld in the absence of any representation to the contrary. Considering the facts and the material available on record in the absence of any infirmity in the order the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself on 06th February, 2020.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →