2014 (9) TMI 1097 - AT - Income Tax

Scope of Rectification or review petition - Held that - We find that in the MAs. filed by the Revenue no point or argument has been mentioned which may have been argued on behalf of the Revenue at the time of hearing of the appeals of the Revenue by the Tribunal. In these facts of the case and in view of the fact that at the time of hearing of these MAs. the Revenue could not point out any argument which was made at the time of hearing of these appeals of the Revenue before the Tribunal and on which it has been claimed by the Revenue that no findings were recorded by the Tribunal. Likewise there is no mention of any arguments on a point which may have been argued before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeals in the present MAs. preferred by the Tribunal. It is well settled that the Tribunal has no power to review its own order and it has limited jurisdiction to rectify any mistake in the order of the Tribunal which could be said to be apparent from the record. In the facts of the present case no mistake could be pointed out in the appellate order of the Tribunal dated 7.9.2012 (2012 (9) TMI 1093 - ITAT AHMEDABAD) which could be said to be a mistake apparent from record and accordingly the present MAs. preferred by the Revenue are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Tribunal for assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008
- Direction from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court to approach Tribunal for findings on all points raised and argued

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) against the Tribunal's order for the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal, prompting the Revenue to seek relief from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The High Court directed the Revenue to approach the Tribunal with an application requesting findings on all points raised and argued in the appeals. The Revenue contended that certain arguments were not considered by the Tribunal, hindering their ability to present their case on merits.

2. The counsel for the assessee opposed the Revenue's submissions, highlighting that the MAs did not specify which arguments were overlooked by the Tribunal. The assessee argued that there was no apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order, and the Tribunal lacked the authority to review its own decision. The assessee maintained that the Revenue failed to establish grounds for recalling the Tribunal's order.

3. Upon careful consideration of the submissions and the High Court's order, the Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to identify any specific arguments that were not addressed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the MAs did not mention any overlooked arguments or points from the appeals. As per legal principles, the Tribunal could only rectify mistakes apparent from the record and lacked the power to review its own order. In the absence of any identifiable errors in the Tribunal's appellate order, the MAs filed by the Revenue were deemed meritless and subsequently dismissed.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the MAs brought by the Revenue, emphasizing that the Revenue did not provide sufficient grounds for the Tribunal to reconsider its earlier decision. The Tribunal reiterated that it could only rectify mistakes that were evident from the record, which was not the case with the Revenue's applications. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld its original order, denying the Revenue's request for a review.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision based on the High Court's directive and the legal principles governing the Tribunal's authority to review its own orders.