Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun v. Sanjay Ghai, 81-D, Rajpur Road,, Dehradun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 35 of 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun ……….. Appellant Versus Sanjay Ghai, 81-D, Rajpur Road,, Dehradun ……….. Respondent Present: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Arv[ind Vashistha, Advocate for the respondent. ] Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) The Tribunal was approached by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Appeals. It succeeded. Thereafter, an application was filed by the Department before the Tribunal for rectification. The issue was, whether the service of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been served or not? It did not indicate, in its rectification application, that any mistake crept in the order of the Tribunal as, in fact, there was none. The Tribunal allowed the said application not recording that in its earlier order, there was any mistake, but on the basis of a purported concession said to have been given by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee. Having had seen that order, the assessee re-approached the Tribunal seeking for rectification of its order, by which the Tribunal allowed the rectification application of the Department on the basis of the purported concession given by the counsel for the assessee. The Tribunal accepted the application of the assessee and recalled its earlier order, which was passed not for the purpose of rectifying a mistake, but on the basis of a purported concession said to have been given by the counsel for the assessee after having had noticed specifically that no such concession was ever given by the learned counsel for the assessee and there is nothing on record to show that any such concession was given. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is contending that the power of rectification is of original orders and not of miscellaneous orders. The fact remains that the order, which stands rectified, if left unchanged, would become the original order. We are, accordingly, unable to accede to the contention on finding no ground to admit the appeal. The same is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 19.03.2014 19.03.2014 P. Singh