9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 627 - AT - Income TaxReadjudication of an order u/s 254(2) - Rectification of mistake - DR contended that as per the chart prepared by the CIT(A), it is noticed that the total of all the items match with the duplicate items/entries but it is seen that there is difference in the items and contents of jewellery - Held that - By this Miscellaneous application DR wanted the Tribunal to review its earlier order, which the Tribunal cannot do it in view of the provisions of section 254(2), as per which, the powers of the Tribunal are limited. Further it is well settled that statutory authority cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There is no express power of review conferred on this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review does not extent to re-hearing of the case on merit. See CIT vs. Pearl Woollen Mills (2009 (11) TMI 48 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT).
Issues:
Rectification of order by ITAT regarding non-consideration of duplicate entries in business income calculation. Analysis: The Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue pertained to rectification of an order by ITAT Hyderabad Bench in appeals ITA No. 479 to 481/Hyd/2006 dated 26/08/2011. The Department sought rectification due to the issue of non-consideration of Rs. 33,57,146 relating to repeated/duplicate entries in the business income calculation. The Tribunal had confirmed the order of the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee, leading to the Department's appeal. The Department argued that there were discrepancies in the items and contents of jewelry, indicating a mistake in the Tribunal's order. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both parties, upheld its earlier decision and dismissed the Department's grounds for rectification. The Tribunal emphasized that its powers, as per section 254(2), are limited, and there is no express power of review conferred upon it. The Tribunal cited the case law of CIT vs. Pearl Woollen Mills to support its stance that it cannot reverse a decision on merits through a rectification process. The Tribunal further delved into the scope and application of section 254(2), highlighting that the power to rectify mistakes is restricted to errors apparent from the record. It clarified that recalling the entire order would necessitate passing a fresh order, which is not the legislative intent. The Tribunal emphasized that an order under section 254(1) is the effective order, and any amendment under section 254(2) merges with the original order. The Tribunal also cited the case law of CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages to reinforce that rectification is not equivalent to a review or recall of the order. The Tribunal outlined various principles regarding the application of section 254(2), including the importance of legal certainty, non-consideration of precedent causing prejudice, and the limitation on rearguing the entire matter under the guise of rectification. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that it cannot review its earlier order as requested by the Department, leading to the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Department. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 21/06/2013, reaffirming its stance on the limited scope of rectification under section 254(2) and the inability to recall an order for a fresh decision.
|
