9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1574 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - applicability of section 40(a)(ia) to expenditure has already been paid during the year and is not payable at the year - Held that - Section 40(a)(ia) applicable only to the expenditure which is payable as on 31st March of every year and that the provisions of this section cannot be invoked to disallow the amounts which have already been paid during the year, which has not been considered by this Bench as held by in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT) that non-consideration of the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High court or the Hon ble Supreme Court) is a mistake apparent on record is rectifiable u/s. 254(2). Accordingly, we recall the aforesaid Order of this Bench to that extent. The Registry is directed to fix the case in due course.
Issues involved:
1. Rectification of order under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. 2. Consideration of jurisdictional High Court's decision on section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3. Recalling of the Tribunal's order based on the non-consideration of the High Court's decision. 4. Appeal by the Department before different High Courts on the same issue. Detailed Analysis: 1. The applicant filed a Misc. Application seeking rectification of the order passed by the Bench in ITA NO.358/ASR/2012 for the assessment year 2009-10. The applicant argued that the Bench relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta but failed to consider its own decision in the case of Jamkash Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Range-2, Jammu. The applicant contended that this omission constituted a mistake apparent from the record. The applicant also highlighted a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in a similar case, where the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the decision of the ITAT, Amritsar. The applicant requested the Bench to adjudicate the appeal afresh, considering the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court. 2. The counsel argued that the Hon'ble J&K High Court's ruling in the case of CIT vs. Jamkash Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd. was given prior to the Tribunal's order and was not referred to during the proceedings. The counsel relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., emphasizing that the non-consideration of the jurisdictional High Court's decision is a rectifiable mistake under section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the counsel requested the recall of the Tribunal's order based on the new information. 3. The Department's representative contended that the Department had not accepted orders passed by various Tribunal Benches on the issue and had appealed before different High Courts. This indicated a disagreement with the Tribunal's decisions on the matter. 4. After hearing the arguments, the Bench acknowledged that the Hon'ble J&K High Court's decision on the issue had not been considered by them, which constituted a mistake apparent on the record. Citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Bench concluded that the order was rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Bench recalled the earlier order and directed the Registry to schedule the case for further proceedings. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the rectification of the order based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of considering relevant judgments in similar cases to ensure a fair and accurate adjudication process.
|
