2014 (7) TMI 1104 - AT - Income Tax

Review of previous order 2015 (3) TMI 922 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Revenue has pleaded in these miscellaneous applications that considering the subsequent order of this Tribunal wherein the statement of the assessee under section 132(4) was consider and addition was allowed, the impugned order may be reconsidered and modified - Held that - sole basis of filing of these miscellaneous applications by the Revenue is the subsequent decision of the Tribunal, dated January 30, 2013, for the assessment year 2004-05 in the case of Arvind M. Kariya. The said decision has been set aside by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide order 2014 (7) TMI 643 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , therefore, the very basis of filing the miscellaneous applications by the Revenue is no more in existence. Further the Revenue has already filed the appeals before the hon'ble High Court against the impugned order, therefore, when the issue is pending adjudication before the hon'ble High Court, it is not appropriate for this Tribunal to adjudicate the said issue in the miscellaneous applications. - There is no dispute that the impugned order sought to be rectified is a detailed and very elaborate reasoned order passed on merit and, therefore, the same cannot be reviewed or reversed under the provisions of section 254(2).- Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Review of Tribunal's order based on subsequent decision and rectification of mistake under section 254(2).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Review of Tribunal's order based on subsequent decision
The Revenue filed miscellaneous applications seeking a review of the Tribunal's order dated December 30, 2011, for assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue argued that a subsequent decision by a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in a different case supported their position. However, the assessee's representative countered that the subsequent decision had been overturned by the High Court, rendering the Revenue's applications baseless. The representative emphasized that the issues for different assessment years were distinct and unrelated. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's applications were solely based on the subsequent decision, which had been set aside by the High Court. The Tribunal highlighted that the issue was already pending before the High Court, making it inappropriate for the Tribunal to re-adjudicate the matter. The Tribunal emphasized that its jurisdiction under section 254(2) was limited to rectifying wide, apparent, and manifest mistakes on the face of the record, not to review orders passed on merits.

Issue 2: Rectification of mistake under section 254(2)
The Tribunal clarified that while section 254(2) allowed for rectification of patent mistakes, it did not empower the Tribunal to review or reverse its orders passed on merits. The Tribunal emphasized that the impugned order was detailed and reasoned, passed after thorough consideration of facts and legal provisions. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's applications, if accepted, would effectively amount to a review of findings given on merit, which was not permissible under section 254(2). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the original order and dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous applications, emphasizing the limited scope of rectification under section 254(2) and the inability to review orders passed on merits.