Income Tax : The three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd struck dow...
Income Tax : A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay pr...
Income Tax : The existing provisions of Section 254(2) provide for a time-limit of four years from the date of the order of the Appellate Tribu...
Income Tax : The ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment orders were time-barred under Section 153 despite the DRP process. Both assessments we...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that sales tax and similar State Government incentives were capital receipts because the schemes were intende...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that the estimated disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted and should not form part of book profits, fol...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that sales tax subsidy granted under industrial incentive schemes constituted a capital receipt because its purpose ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that the assessee could not claim deduction under Section 54 for the first time before the Tribunal when it ha...
Section 254(2) of the Act refers to the period of limitation reckoning from the end of the month in which the order is passed and not from the date of ‘date of receipt of the served/ received are not interchangeable and the Legislature in its wisdom expressly used the phraselogy depending on the intention. In the instant case, the expression passed cannot be stretched to mean that the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the order.
By section 254(4) of the IT Act, an order which has been passed by the Tribunal reaches finality the moment the same is passed: it cannot be touched thereafter. By section 254(2) of the act, the Tribunal, however, has been authorized to rectify mistakes in its orders, which are apparent on the face of the records.
These bunch of miscellaneous applications have been filed by different assessees viz., Reliance Communications Ltd., (formerly known as Reliance Infocom Ltd.), Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd., Reliance BPO Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Reliance Infostream Pvt. Ltd.) and Reliance Telecom Ltd.
In the present facts there is nothing on record in the form of the Advocates letter, etc. to indicate that the petitioner acted upon his legal advise and the same was wrong. Therefore, whether the petitioner acted on advise of his Advocate or not is itself a subject matter of debate. Thus taking the application outside the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act.
The existing provisions of Section 254(2) provide for a time-limit of four years from the date of the order of the Appellate Tribunal for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. In practice this long time-limit has given rise to difficulties arising on account of non-availability of the Members who passed the order due to transfer or retirement or otherwise. Moreover any mistake in the order should not be allowed to remain for such a long period.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Shakti Cable Industries vs. ITO that it is clear that the words mistake apparent from record, as appearing in the section 254(2) has a special meaning and definite connotation.
A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay prosecution. The said finding is the bone of contention between the parties. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court at Chandigarh),
If the AO had reopened the assessment and made a disallowance and these facts could affect the outcome of the issue, the AO should appear before the FAA to file an explanation about the chronology of events. But, in any manner the subsequent decision taken by the AO cannot be held to be a mistake apparent from the record.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pepsi Foods Private Limited vs. ACIT [W.P.(C) 1334/2015] pronounced on 19-05-2015 wherein the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’).
The assessing officer is a prospector of the revenue and he is no doubt expected to protect the interests of the revenue zealously, but such zeal has to be tempered with the rules of fair play and an anxiety to ensure that a opportunity is not lost to the assessee to make alternative arrangements for clearing the tax dues, once the stay applications filed under section 220(3) are rejected.
