November 2018

Section 254 The ITAT is an adjudicator and not an investigator. It has to rely upon the investigation / enquiry conducted by the AO. The Department cannot fault the ITAT's order and seek a recall on the ground that an order of SEBI, though available, was not produced before the ITAT at the hearing. The negligence or laches lies with the Department and for such negligence or laches, the order of the ITAT cannot be termed as erroneous u/s. 254(2). Section 254(2) of the Act is very limited in its scope and ambit and only applies to rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record, review of earlier decision of the Tribunal is not permissible under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act

JAGDISH D. SHAH | JAGDISH T. PUNJABI
Chartered Accountants

4.  ITO vs. Iraisaa Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Members : Saktijit Dey, JM and Rajesh Kumar, AM

MA No. 29/Mum/2017 arising out of ITA No.: 6165/Mum/2014

A. Y.: 2007-08  
Dated: 10th September, 2018.

Counsel for revenue / assessee: Ram Tiwari / Pradeep Kapasi

 

Section 254 The ITAT is an adjudicator and not an investigator. It has to rely upon the investigation / enquiry conducted by the AO. The Department cannot fault the ITAT's order and seek a recall on the ground that an order of SEBI, though available, was not produced before the ITAT at the hearing. The negligence or laches lies with the Department and for such negligence or laches, the order of the ITAT cannot be termed as erroneous u/s. 254(2). Section 254(2) of the Act is very limited in its scope and ambit and only applies to rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record, review of earlier decision of the Tribunal is not permissible under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act

--->

Past Issues

Flip-Book
HTML View
Current Issue