2007 (5) TMI 214 - HC - Income Tax

Application for rectification u/s 254(2) - Disallowance on loss of exchange fluctuation - challenging two different orders passed by the Tribunal, in one single appeal is not maintainable - HELD THAT - Section 254(2), enables the concerned authorities to rectify any mistake apparent from the record . It is well settled that an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under this section. Similarly, failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion, is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. The mere fact that the Tribunal has not allowed a deduction, even if the conclusion is wrong, that will be no ground for moving an application u/s 254(2) of the Act. Further, in the garb of application for rectification, the assessee cannot be allowed to be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of this section and same is the view of this court in the case of Ms. Deeksha Suri 1997 (5) TMI 20 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Accordingly, we find that the present appeal is wholly misconceived and without any basis and we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings given by the Tribunal and there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of two orders by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding disallowance of loss and dismissal of rectification application.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged two orders by the Tribunal disallowing a loss of Rs. 38,30,000 due to foreign exchange fluctuation on a long-term loan. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, stating it was not revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance in its order dated April 22, 2004.

2. The appellant's appeal to the High Court was disposed of on December 6, 2004, advising the appellant to approach the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application on June 15, 2005, leading to the present appeal challenging both orders.

3. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not allowing the loss on exchange fluctuation for a loan used for working capital, arguing that the Department had previously accepted the loan as revenue expenditure. However, the Tribunal maintained its decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to prove the loan's utilization for working capital.

4. The High Court noted that challenging two separate orders in a single appeal was not maintainable. It also highlighted that the Tribunal's decision on the disallowance issue in the earlier order could not be re-agitated in the present appeal.

5. Regarding the order dated June 15, 2005, the High Court discussed section 254(2) of the Act, emphasizing that rectification is for correcting apparent mistakes, not for rearguing the entire matter. The Court cited precedents to support the limited scope of rectification under this section.

6. The Tribunal, in its order, reiterated that the appellant failed to provide evidence of loan utilization for working capital, both before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the rectification application was an attempt to reargue the case, beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act.

7. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the present appeal, finding it baseless and concurring with the Tribunal's decisions. The Court upheld that the rectification application did not warrant reopening the matter, as the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the loan utilization for working capital.