Madhya Pradesh H.C : There was no mistake apparent on the face of the record and in this view of the matter, the Tribunal rejected the application under s. 254(2)

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

CIT vs. Shelley Products

Section 256(2)

Asst. Year 1976-77

G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J. & D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.

Misc. Civil Case No. 440 of 1988

21st April, 1989

Counsel Appeared

Rawat, for the Revenue : M.S. Choudhary, for the Assessee

G. SOHANI, ACTG. C. J. :

This is an application under section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The material facts giving rise to this application, briefly, are as follows. The assessee was assessed in the status of a registered firm. The assessment year in question is 1976-77. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) on the ground that the IAC, Indore, had no jurisdiction under s. 144B of the Act to give directions to the ITO (Special Investigation Circle)-I, Indore, who framed the assessment order. The appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the order of assessment deserved to be quashed as the IAC (Assessment), Indore, had no jurisdiction to issue directions under s. 144B of the Act. The Revenue, therefore, submitted an application under s. 254(2) of the Act on the ground that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record and in this view of the matter, the Tribunal rejected the application under s. 254(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the application preferred by the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, the Revenue has filed this application under s. 256(2) of the Act.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this application deserves to be rejected. It cannot be held that any question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the application under s. 254(2) of the Act. The application under s. 256(2) of the Act, therefore, deserves to be rejected.

The application is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of this application.

[Citation : 179 ITR 523]

Malcare WordPress Security