9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 84 - HC - Income TaxRectification of mistake - mistake apparent from the records - rectification of order or review of its own order - Held that - There was no error or mistake evident which could be rectified - The error, which is not self-evident or to be detected by process of reasoning on the face of the record shall not provide scope of indulgence by the ITAT to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the IT Act. - Mere possibility of two views on the subject is also not a ground for review or rectification of an order - It appears that the ITAT vide impugned order dated 6.4.2004 has reviewed its earlier order dated 11.3.2003 / (Annexure A-6) which was passed on detailed discussion and elaboration - By impugned order, ITAT has erroneously rectified / modified its earlier order in the garb of rectifying the mistake apparent from the record, whereas, there was no mistake apparent on the record, instead debatable issues were persisting, as such, amendment / rectification / modification in question vide impugned order dated 6.4.2004 was not legally justifiable - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the ITAT was justified in modifying its earlier order. 2. Whether the ITAT's findings in accepting the 'Miscellaneous Petition for rectification' were wrong and perverse. 3. Whether there was a mistake apparent from the record in the ITAT's earlier order, justifying rectification. 4. Whether the ITAT's action amounted to an impermissible review of its earlier order. 5. Whether the ITAT was justified in imposing unlawful taxes on the appellant by way of rectification. 6. Whether the ITAT's order was self-contradictory, justifying the alleged review/rectification. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of ITAT in Modifying its Earlier Order: The appellant argued that the ITAT erred in reviewing its order under the guise of rectification, as the original order was passed after thorough deliberation. The ITAT's power under Section 254(2) of the IT Act is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, not for re-assessment or review of debatable issues. The court held that the ITAT's impugned order dated 6.4.2004 was not justified as it involved a change of opinion rather than rectifying an apparent mistake. 2. Wrong and Perverse Findings in Accepting the Miscellaneous Petition: The appellant contended that the ITAT's acceptance of the Miscellaneous Petition was based on a misconception regarding its power to comment on future tax implications of the receipts of the year under appeal. The court found that the ITAT's action was based on a mistaken belief and thus, the rectification was erroneous. 3. Mistake Apparent from the Record: The court emphasized that a mistake apparent from the record must be glaring and obvious, not requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning. The court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in T.S. Balaram, I.T.O Company Circle IV versus Volkart Brothers & others, to support that the ITAT's rectification was impermissible as it involved debatable issues. 4. Impermissible Review of Earlier Order: The court noted that the ITAT's original order dated 11.3.2003 was detailed and reasoned, and the subsequent modification amounted to a review rather than a rectification. The court held that the ITAT's action was beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the IT Act, which does not permit re-assessment or review of orders. 5. Imposition of Unlawful Taxes by Way of Rectification: The appellant argued that the ITAT's rectification resulted in the imposition of unlawful taxes. The court found that the ITAT's action was not justified as it was based on a misinterpretation of its powers and the original order was not self-contradictory. 6. Self-Contradictory Order Justifying Review/Rectification: The court examined the ITAT's original order and found no self-contradiction when read harmoniously. The court held that the ITAT's original order was consistent and the alleged contradictions were a result of misinterpretation by the revenue department. Conclusion: The court concluded that the ITAT's impugned order dated 6.4.2004 was not legally justifiable as it involved a change of opinion and re-assessment, which are not within the scope of Section 254(2) of the IT Act. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellant, and the impugned order was set aside. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
|
