2015 (7) TMI 1209 - AT - Income Tax

Scope of Rectification or review petition - Held that - As against the M.As. which was dismissed by Tribunal, Revenue has again preferred the present M.As. which are on the same set of facts and through which the Revenue wants us to recall the appellate order on the alleged premise, that there was an error apparent in the order. We find that while disposing of the M.As. vide order dated 26.09.2014 2014 (9) TMI 1097 - ITAT AHMEDABAD it was concluded by the Tribunal that there was no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal and in such a situation, we are of the view that it is not open to Tribunal to entertain the second application on the same set of facts . We draw support from the decision in the case of CIT vs. Chemical and Allied Products (2006 (11) TMI 175 - ALLAHABAD High Court) where the Hon ble High Court has held that when Tribunal having rejected the first application filed under section 254(2) on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the face of record in the order of Tribunal, it was not open to the Tribunal to entertain the second application which was filed on the same set of facts and recall its appellate order on the alleged premise that there was an error apparent in the order. The Hon ble High Court has further held that the Assessee cannot be allowed to be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter in the garb of rectification under section 254(2). - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Tribunal's order, Dismissal of previous M.As., Entertaining second M.A., Error apparent in the order, Rectification under Section 254(2)

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed two Miscellaneous Applications (M.As.) against the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 2698 & 2699/Ahd/2009 for A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal failed to consider certain arguments and points during the appeal, leading to a misappreciation of facts and legal contentions. They sought the M.As. to be allowed based on Section 254(2) of the Act.

2. The Respondent contended that the Tribunal had already dismissed the Revenue's appeal previously, and subsequently, the M.As. bearing no. 197 & 198/Ahd/2013 were also dismissed. The Respondent argued that as per legal principles, no second M.A. could be preferred against the dismissal of an M.A., thus urging for the present M.As. to be dismissed.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the Revenue's M.As. lacked specific arguments or points that were argued during the appeal process but not recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to a High Court order directing the Revenue to approach the Tribunal with a proper application to address all raised points. As the Revenue failed to highlight any such unaddressed points, the Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent mistake in its earlier order, leading to the dismissal of the present M.As.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that since the M.As. were based on the same facts as the previously dismissed M.As., and no error was found in the Tribunal's previous order, it was not permissible to entertain the second application. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that the Assessee cannot reopen and reargue the entire matter under the guise of rectification under Section 254(2). Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's present M.As.

5. Conclusively, the Tribunal dismissed both Miscellaneous Applications of the Revenue, emphasizing that no apparent mistake was identified in its prior order. The decision was based on legal principles and precedents that restrict the reopening of matters already adjudicated upon, especially when no error is evident in the original order.