1
CHART FOR APPEALS UNDER CHAPTER XX
PARTICULARS
INCOME TAX
1.Orders Appealable
2.Time Limit of Filing the
Appeal.
3.Prescribed Form No.
4.Who can file Appeal
5.Fees Payable
6.Documents to be Filed.
7. Documents to be
Submitted in :
8.Place of Filing.
Cross Objection.
1.Prescribed Form No.
2.Time Limit for filing the
Cross Objection.
3.Fees Payable.
Stay Application
1. Fees Payable
2. Documents to be filed.
Miscellaneous Application
1) Fees Payable
2) Documents to be filed
CIT(A)
Sec. 246 to 251
Mentioned u/s.246A
Within 30 Days from the
date of Receipt of Notice of
Demand.
Form No. 35.
(As per Rule 45)
Aggrieved Assessee
Rs.250/- where the
Assessed Income is Rs.1
lakh or less; more than Rs.1
lakh but less than Rs.2
lakh-Rs.500/- and more
than Rs.2 lakh-Rs.1000/-
Form No.35, Grounds of
Appeal, Statement
of Facts, Copy of Order
against which appeal is
preferred, Notice of
Demand and original
challan of filing fees.
Duplicate.
CIT(A) as mentioned
in the Notice of
Demand.
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
TRIBUNAL
Sec. 252 to 255
Mentioned u/s. 253.
Within 60 Days from the
date of Service of CIT(A)'s
order.
Form No. 36.
(As per Rule 47(1))
Aggrieved Assessee or
Commissioner.
Rs.500/- where the
Income assessed is
Rs.1 lakh or less,
Rs.1,500/- where the
income assessed is
more than Rs.1 lakh
but less than rs.2lakh
and 1% of assessed
income, subject fee
maximum of Rs.10,000/-
where the income
assessed income is more
than 2 lakhs.
Form No.36, Grounds of
Appeal, Copy of Order
against which appeal is
preferred,
& Documents filed
before the CIT(A)
as referred in the
column.
Triplicate.
Registrar of the Appellate
Tribunal.
Form No. 36 A.
(As per Rule 47(1))
Within 30 days of the
receipt of the notice of
appeal filed by other party.
No Fees Payable.
Rs.500/-
(w.e.f.1/10/1998) [per
application as per the
decision of the Tribunal]
Stay Petition, Rejection
order for stay by CIT &
Assessing Officer Affid-
avit, orders of lower
authorities & documents
furnished to them.
Rs.50/-
(w.e.f. 1/10/98)
Miscellaneous Application
Petition, order of the
Tribunal, Affidavit
HIGH COURT
Sec. 260A & 260B
Mentioned U/s. 260A
Within 120 days from the
date of Communication of
Appellate Tribunal order.
As per High Court original
side Rules.
Aggrieved Assessee or
Commissioner.
Ad-volarem fee leviable on
the amount in dispute, i.e.
the difference between the
amount of tax actually
assessed and the amount of
tax admitted by the
assessee as payable by him,
subject to a maximum of
Rs.10,000/- (only by
assessee). {As per Article
16A to Schedule I of the
Bombay Court Fees Act}.
Memo of Appeal;
Statement of facts, orders
of the lower authorities and
documents relied upon the
Tribunal and lower
authorities.
Duplicate. One copy to be
served on Respondent.
Respective High Court.
Rule 22 of order XLI of
CPC
Within 30 days form date
of service of the appeal.
---
---
---
---
---
 2

PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO APPEALS & REVISIONS UNDER THE I. T. ACT, 1961.

By
Shri Ajay R. Singh
Advocate
KSA Legal Chambers

INTRODUCTION

Right of Appeal is a creature of Statute. A person has no inherent right of appeal and
hence, it cannot come under the category of fundamental rights
An appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings. Assessment proceedings
complete when appeal against order of assessment is decided by Tribunal CIT vs.
Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562(Guj.)

A. FIRST APPEAL: Section 246 confers the right to appeal before the CIT(A)
in respect of orders specified u/s. 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

1. WHO CAN FILE APPEAL? - AGREED ASSESSMENT

1.1 "Every Assessee aggrieved" by any of the orders mentioned in Section 246
of the I.T. Act, 1961 has a right to prefer an appeal. In Rameshchandra & Co.
v. CIT 168 ITR 375 (380) (Bom), it has been held that where an assessee
has made a statement on facts, there can be no grievance if he is taxed on the
basis of that statement. As there is no grievance, there can be no appeal.
When an Assessing Officer states in the Order that the Assessee agreed for
addition, he cannot file an appeal unless he challenges the observation of the
Assessing Officer by filing Affidavit - Western India Automobiles v. CIT 112
ITR 1048 (Bom).

1.2 Assessee should make application u/s.154 of the Act, challenging the
observation of the Assessing Officer and should also file an appeal
specifically urging that he has not agreed for additions and the same should
be supported by an Affidavit.

1.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A.
Balasubramanin CIT 92004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom) held that there cannot be any
 3

estoppel against statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India provides that
no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.

1.4 Order Giving effect to Appellate order : Appealable :

a) CIT vs. Industrial Machinery manufacturing P. Ltd.
(2006) 282 ITR 595 (Guj.)
b) Bakelite Hylam Ltd. vs. CIT 171 ITR 344(AP)

Against
ANZ Grindlays Bank PLC vs. CIT 241 ITR 269 (Cal.)

1.5 Where he Department denies its liability to pay interest an refund of self
assessment tax, the issue is appealable : Sec. 244A
Dy. CIT vs. BSES Ltd. (2008) 113 TTj 227 (Mum)(para 19.6)

2. PROCEDURE : GROUNDS OF APPEAL & STATEMENT OF FACTS

2.1 The same should be concise without any argumentative or narrative. The
grounds should highlight the main controversy in issue. The grounds should
not be vague, general or too lengthy.

2.2 The Statement of Facts should be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. DELAY IN FILING APPEAL: An application for condonation of delay

alongwith affidavit stating the reasons for delay should be filed alongwith
the appeal.

3.1 In Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mrs. Katiji & Others 167 ITR 471
(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts should have
pragmatic & liberal approach in admitting the appeal beyond the period of
limitation. Also see N. Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC
123 and State of Nagaland vs. Lipuk A.O. 2005 (183) E.L.T. 337 (SC)
 4

4. PAYMENT OF TAX MANDATORY BEFORE FILING APPEAL.

4.1 Section 249(4) provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless at the time
of filing the appeal the assessee has paid the taxes due on the returned income
or where no return is filed, an amount equal to the amount of advance tax
which was payable by him. The tax due does not include interest element.
CIT vs. Manoj Kumar Beriwal (2009) 316 ITR 218 (Bom)

4.2 Case Laws: Once the assessee has complied with the provisions Appeal be
heard on merit:
i) 84 ITD 55 (Chennai) Subbiah Nadur & Sons vs. ACIT
ii) M/s. Kautuabally a. Ariwala vs. ITO
ITA No. 5329/M/2002, dated 1/3/2004
v) J.K. Chaturvedi vs. Astt. CIT 2004 (3) SOT 456 Ahd.

5. Defect in Appeal:
Defect in Appeal can be rectified by an amendment. The Assessee should
be given an opportunity to rectify the defect:
a) Malani Trading Co. vs. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 670 (Bom)
b) BDA Ltd. vs. ITO (TDS) 281 ITR 99 (Bom) (Aurangabad Bench)
Procedural defect must be intimated to be appellant
c) CIT vs. Calcutta Discount 91 ITR 8 (SC)

6. Hearing: Assessee should file written submission and paper book.

6.1 The CIT(A) has power to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit or may
direct the A.O. to make further inquiry and report to him. Assessee is entitled
to reply to the remand report.

6.2 The CIT(A) has to pass a speaking order dealing which each grounds of
appeals. The CIT(A) should pass the order on merits even though heard
exparte / or assessee did not appear. - CIT vs. Chennaippa 74 ITR 41 (SC)
 5

The CIT(A) cannot apply Multiplan (India) Ltd. 38 ITD 320, Decision and
dismiss the assessees appeal. Gujarat Themis Biosyn ltd v/s. Jt CIT 74 ITD
339 (Ahd).

7. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
If the assessee is been prevented by good, sufficient or reasonable cause or
adequate time is not allowed such fresh evidence can be placed before the
appellate authority by making a Application U/R. 46A.

7.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting additional

evidence produced before him – Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT 231 ITR 1
(Bom); Dwarika Prasad v. ITO 63 ITD 1 (Patna)(TM).

7.2 Under Rule 46A(4) the CIT(A) on its own discretion can ask the assessee to
produce documents or evidence. Additional evidence gathered by the CIT(A)
on his own is not required to be produced before A.O. for his comments.
- Dy. CIT vs. Thoresen Chartery Singapore (2009) 118 ITD 416 (Mum)
- ITO vs. Jitender Mehra 53 ITD 396 (Del.)
- CIT vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair (2004) 265 ITR 217 (Ker.)
- ITO vs. Indl. Roadways (2008) 305 ITR 219 (Mum(AT).

8. RAISING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS

8.1 Sub-section 5 of Section 250 gives power to the Commissioner (A) to allow
the appellant to raise additional ground if he is satisfied that the omission of
that ground was not wilful or unreasonable.
a) Jute Corp. of India Ltd. vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC)
b) Heinrichde Frics GMBH vs. Jt. CIT 281 ITR 18 (Mum)(AT)

9. JURISDICTION POINT.
9.1 The Assessee can raise the jurisdiction point for levy of penalty at any time. -
Union of India v. Rai Singh Dal Singh 88 ITR 200 (SC), CIT v. Dumravan
Cold Storage & Refrigerators Services 97 ITR 137 (Pat), The Assessee can
raise the jurisdictional point before the Tribunal also inrespect of
 6

reassessment proceedings. As it is a question of law which goes to the root of

the matter.

10. MAKING A CLAIM FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE APPELLATE

AUTHORITY

10.1 If there was evidence or material on record, then only a claim made for the
first time be entertained by the Appellate Authority. CIT v. Western Rolling
Mills Pvt. Ltd. 154 ITR 54 (Bom).

10.2 The Board have issued instructions from time to time in regard to the attitude
which the Officers of the Department should adopt in dealing with
assessees in matters affecting their interests and convenience. Circular
No.14(XL-35) of 1955, C.No.13(207)-IT/50, dated 11th April, 1955, states
that the Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of
an assessee as to his rights.

10.3 However the recent decision of S.C. in the case Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT
284 ITR 323 (SC) has held that it was open to the assessee to raise new points
of law before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has such powers u/s. 254 of the Act.

10.4. A.O. is bound to assess the correct income and for this purpose the Assessing
officer may grant relief’s / refund sou motu or can do so on being pointed out
by the assessee in the case of assessment proceedings for which assessee has
not filed a revised return.
Case Laws After Considering Goetze (India) Ltd. (Supra)
a) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT
(2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mum) (273)

b) In CIT v Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 42 (Delhi), the court held
that the Tribunal has the power to decide the issue..
 7

c) In CIT vs. Ramco International (2009) 221 CTR 491 (P & H) held that claim
u/s. 80IB was admissible even without a revised return.

10.5 However, the A.O. cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by
filing a revise return.

In case where assessment is not pending and the time available for filing a
revised return is also expired, the only remedy is to seek extension of time u/s.
119(2) from the Board for filing a delayed return in case of genuine hardship.

The assessee can also file rectification Application u/s. 154 on facts of the case
or make a application to CIT u/s 264.

11. POWERS OF THE CIT(A)

11.1 Power to Stay the Recovery Proceedings
. In following cases it has been held that the CIT(A) has the power to Stay the
Recovery Proceedings. Prem Prakash Tripathi v. CIT 208 ITR 461 (All). Tin
Mfg. Co. India Ltd. v. CIT 212 ITR 451 (All). Paulsons Litho Works v. ITO
208 ITR 676 (Mad); Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs. CIT (2005)
279 ITR 371 (Pat.), Smita Agrawal (Ind.) vs. CIT 184 Taxman 59(All)

11.2 Power of Enhancement

The CIT(A) has power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annual the assessment;
confirm or cancel or vary or enhance or to reduce the penalty and may pass
such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit.. However the CIT(A) should give
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The filing of an appeal may
lead to grave consequences of enhancement of assessment.

11.3 The CIT(A) powers u/s. 251 are vide enough to include the power to examine
all matters covered by the assessment order and to correct the assessment.
166 ITR 494 (MP) Indermal Natwarlal vs. CIT
206 ITR 574 (Guj) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Crucible Co.
131 ITR 451 (SC) Kapoorchand Shrimal vs. CIT
 8

305 ITR 310 (Chennai) AT Ansaldo Energia SPA vs. Astt. DIT

B. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE I.T.A.T

1. INTRODUCTION
“The Supreme Court in Ajay Gandhi & Anr. Vs. B. Singh & Ors.: (2004) 265
ITR 451 (SC) observed : “The Tribunal exercises judicial functions and has
the trappings of a Court”.

2. TIME LIMIT FOR PREFERRING APPEAL

2.1 An appeal should be filed within Sixty days of the receipt of the order of
the Commissioner (A) in the prescribed Form No. 36.
In case of delay in filing the appeal, on Application for condonation of delay
alongwith the affidavit of the assessee and supporting document must be filed
alongwith the appeal.

3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
3.1 As per Rule 8 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, every memorandum of
appeal shall be written in English. The same should be concise without any
argument or narrative.

4. CROSS OBJECTIONS.
4.1 If the assessee or the Assessing Officer prefers an appeal to the Tribunal
u/s.253(1) or (2), as the case may be, and the appeal is not rejected under rule
12 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, a notice is given by the Tribunal to the
respondent informing him of the fact of such filing, also enclosing the
memorandum and grounds of appeal. The respondent can file, u/s.253(4), a
memorandum of cross objections in Form No.36A, within 30 days from the
date of receipt of such notice, against any part of the order of the first appellate
authority deciding any issue against him. The cross objection filed is registered
and numbered. It should be heard alongwith the original appeal.
 9

4.2 In absence of Cross appeal the Respondent still has Right to agitate its
point via R. 27 of Income tax Appellate Tribunal Rules:
Dahod Suhakar Kharid 282 ITR 321 (Guj.)
Dy. CIT vs. Turquoise Invest. 299 ITR 143 (MP)
B.R. Bamsi vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 223 Bom (245 – 246)
Assam Co. (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 423 (Gauh.) (Pg. 439-440)
Dy. CIT vs. Bifora Watch Co. 94 ITD 203 (Mum) (TM) Pg. 211 Para 21
Smt. Narasamma vs. Asst. CIT (2002) 75 TTJ 298 (Bang.) (Para 4 Pg. 302)

The Tribunal has the discretion to allow any party to an appeal may be the
appellant or the respondent to raise a new point or new contention provided
two conditions are satisfied:
a) No new facts are required to be brought on record for disposing of
such new point.
b) An opportunity is given to the other side to meet the point.

5. Monetary Limits for filing appeal: Tax effect

CBDT Instruction No.2 dt. 24/10/2005 prescribing Monetary limits for filing
appeal by the Department.
[(2005) 198 CTR 41 (St)]
Tax effect
a) Appeal before ITAT Rs. 2 lacs
b) Appeal before High Court Rs. 4 lacs
c) Appeal before the S.C. Rs. 10 lacs
(Also see Instruction No. 5/2008, dated 15/5/2008 wherein it has been
held that for the purpose of tax effect interest will not be included.
Similarly in loss cases notional tax effect should be taken into account.
In cases of penalty order the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty.)

In cases involving substantial question of law of importances as well as cases

where the same question of law will be repeatedly arise it should be
considered separately on merits.
 10

Decisions : CBDT instruction binding on Revenue

(2009) 222 CTR 328 (Bom) CIT vs. Polycott Corporation

276 ITR 519 (Bom) CIT vs. Pithwa Engg. Works
(2002) 254 ITR 565 (Bom) CIT vs. Camo Colour Co.
(2006) 100 ITD 555 (Raj.) Asstt. CIT vs. Rajoo Eng. Ltd.

6. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL

6.1 Every appellate authority has implied and incidental power to grant relief even
if the statute does not provide.
Bulk India Transport 266 ITR 144 (All)
Mohammed Katri 71 ITR 815 (SC)

6.3 To issue appropriate direction :Kapurchand Shrimal 131 ITR 451 (SC)

6.4 Right of assessee is not restricted to the plea raised by him. It is the duty of the
authority to allow relief on any other ground, if permissible
- Ciba of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 1 (Bom)
- CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Textiles Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 710 (SC)

6.5 Revenue cannot be given second innings to improve its case to make an
addition.
216 ITR 99 (AT) ITO vs. Gurubachansingh J. Juneja (Ahmed.)
73 ITD 125 (Del) (TM) ACIT vs. Anima Investment Ltd.
Power to Admit Additional Grounds

6.6 Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, provides that the appellant shall not except,
by leave of Tribunal, urge or be heard in support of ground not set forth in the
memorandum of appeal. However, the Tribunal is competent to allow the
appellant to raise at the hearing of the appeal an additional ground even
without a formal amendment of the memorandum of appeal. National
Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC),
 11

6.7 Question of Law is concerned, additional grounds can be raised at any time -
Jute Corporation of India v. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC); Ahmedabad Electricity
Co. Ltd. v. CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom); Ramgopal Ganpatrai & Sons v. CIT 24
ITR 362 (372) (Bom); J.S. Parkar v. V. B. Palekar 94 ITR 616(Bom); 262 ITR
385 (Bom) Baby Samuel vs. Astt. CIT, Asha Martime (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT
314 ITR 249 (Mum)(AT).

Power to admit Additional Evidences before the Tribunal

6.8 Rule 29 does not confer any right on the parties as such to produce any
additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal. Such
power has been vested only in the Tribunal to admit fresh evidences &
affidavits, etc. - CIT v. Smt. Kamal C. Mehboobbani 214 ITR 15 (Bom);
Dy.CIT v. Vira Construction Co. 61 ITD 33 (Mum)(TM). Where additional
evidence enables the Tribunal to pass orders or for any other substantial
cause, it can require the parties to do so - Abhay Kumar Shroff v. ITO 63
ITD 144 (Patna)(TM - Jagbir Singh v. ITO 23 ITD 15; Electra (Jaipur) (P.)
Ltd. v. IAC 26 ITD 236

6.9 Power of Enhancement.. The Tribunal is not empowered to do indirectly

what it cannot directly do – V. Ramaswamy Iyengar vs. CIT 40 ITR 377
(Mad); Pathikonda Balasubba Setty (Deceased) vs. CIT 65 ITR 252 (Mys.);
Mc Crop Global (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 309 ITR 434 (SC)

6.10 An appellant cannot be worse off by being in appeal before Tribunal

- Integrated Feeder Containers Services vs. Jt. CIT 2005 (4) SOT 357
(Mum)
- Jt. CIT vs. Sakura Bank Ltd. 100 ITD 215 (Mum)

7. EX-PARTE ORDER.
7.1 Applications made for restoration of appeals which are dismissed ex-parte on
account of non-appearance, desire to be liberally construed.
Rainbow Agri Ind. Ltd. vs. ITAT (2004) 266 ITR 39 (Bom)
 12

8. DUTIES OF TRIBUNAL.

8.1 Tribunal being a final authority as far as facts is concerned, the Tribunal has to
consider and decide all issues that are brought before it and pass reasoned
order / speaking order :
- Manibyrabha vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 560 (Ker)
- CIT vs. Bright Auto Motive & Placties Ltd. 280 ITR 157
- 256 ITR 685 (Bom) Gautom Harilal Gotecha 281 ITR 283 (Guj.)

8.2 Order should be passed within 3 month from date of hearing.

- Shiv Sagar Veg Restaurant vs. ACIT
317 ITR 433 (Bom)

8.3 A concession of law made by an assessee or his authorized representative is

not binding.
CIT vs. Archana R. Dhanwatory (1982) 136 ITR 355 (Bom)
ITO vs. Estate of Late K.S. Engineer (2001) 70 TTJ 161 (Mum)

9. BINDING NATURE OF HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS

Doctrine of binding precedent:

The doctrine of binding precedent has merit of promoting certainty and

consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of law
‘besides providing assurance to an individual as to the consequence of
transaction, forming part of his daily affairs.
UOI vs. Raghubir sing 178 ITR 548 (SC)

9.1 As per the doctrine of precedent, all lower Courts, Tribunals and authorities
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions are bound by the decisions of the
High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction these Courts, Tribunals &
authorities functions.
CIT vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. (1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bom)
 13

REVISIONS
1. REVISION OF ORDERS PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE

1.1 The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” has to be read in
conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue
as a consequence of an order of A.O. cannot be treated as prejudicial to the
interest of the revenue – Which issue is debatable order cannot be Revised u/s.
263 Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing
Products & Camphor Works 231 ITR 53 (SC). CIT vs. Max India Ltd.
(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC).

1.2 The expression "erroneous" refers to an order which has an error or is contrary
to law. The words `prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' must mean that
the orders under consideration are such as are not in accordance with the
law and lawful revenue due to the State has not been realised or cannot be
realised - Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom).

1.3 The CIT cannot revise the order merely because he disagrees with view of
the A.O. Similarly The Commissioner cannot revise assessment for the
purpose of making roving enquiries. Such an action will be against the well
accepted proposition that there must be a finality in legal proceedings – CIT
vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and Indexo Int. vs. CIT 88 ITD
293 (Mum).

1.4 Commissioner cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in
show-cause notice.
Geo Metric Software Solutions Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 428 (Mum)
Colocraft vs. ITO 303 ITR 7 (Mum) (AT)

1.5 Doctrine of Merger - What merges with the appellate order is only that
part of the order of the Assessing Officer as was the subject-matter of the
appeal and no more. Immunity from the proceedings under section 263 is
 14

restricted to this extent - B.S. Bajaj & Sons 222 ITR 418 (P&H), Marico Ind.
Vs. ACIT 312 ITR 259 (Mum)(AT)

1.6 Commissioner has jurisdiction and powers to initiate proceedings u/s.263 in

respect of issues not touched by CIT(A) in his appellate order.
CIT vs. Jaykumar B. Patil 236 ITR 469 (SC)
CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills 231 ITR 50 (SC)

2. REVISION OF OTHER ORDERS

2.1 An Assessee aggrieved by the orders as specified in Section 246 of the Act
can file an appeal to the CIT(A). However, there may be orders passed by
the Assessing Officer which are not included in specific orders in section 246.
In such cases, the only machinery left with the Assessee is to invoke the
revisionery jurisdiction of Commissioner under section 264 of the Act.

Rectification Application
In the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has at page 53 held that :

A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not
something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on
points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. … “

Miscellaneous Application before Appellate Tribunal

1. Rule

Rule 34A of the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 which was inserted w.e.f 25th
July 1991 provides for the procedure for dealing with applications under Section
254(2

2. Hearing
 15

The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Smart Pvt. Ltd. vs ITAT (1990) 182
ITR 384 took the view that although there was no specific provision for dealing
with an application under Section 254(2) the rules of natural justice would
require that both parties be heard before disposing of the application.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jain Trading Co. vs. UOI 282
ITR 640 (Bom) has held that the assessee should be heard prior to disposal
of the application u/s. 254(2).

3. Tribunal cannot rehear the appeal u/s. 254(2) Mahesh Bery vs. Astt. CIT 317
ITR 110 (Kol.)(AT)
16
17