2013 (12) TMI 950 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Order resulted in additional burden on the assessee - Held that - When an appeal is preferred before the Tribunal by any of the parties, the Tribunal is supposed to pass appropriate order as it may deem fit in the appeal preferred by any of the parties - It is immaterial whether such order will benefit one or the other of the parties in the process it might be in favour of a party, who had not preferred the appeal, particularly, when the principle of law is laid down and on such legal principle the appellant may not entitled to any relief - There is nothing to prevent the Tribunal from passing appropriate order in such an appeal preferred by one of the parties even though it might amount to granting of relief to a party, who did not prefer any appeal - The Tribunal is not supposed to pass an anomalous order - Neither can it create a confusing state and permit confusion to continue, nor can it pass an incongruous order. It has to decide the case irrespective of the fact as to whether it would amount to granting relief to the other party who did not prefer the appeal - Following CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service 1992 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court - Tribunal is having no such power to make a review. There was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal much less any mistake apparent on record - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of order under Section 54EC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appellant sought rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 2.5.2013, claiming that applying clause (b) of Section 54EC(1) of the Act imposed an additional burden. Despite multiple notices, the appellant failed to appear, leading to the rejection of the adjournment request. The appellant argued that the relief under Section 54EC was not appealed before the CIT(Appeals) or the Tribunal, questioning the Tribunal's authority to direct the application of clause (b) of Section 54EC(1). On the contrary, the Revenue contended that the Tribunal's order was error-free and any change would necessitate a review, which the Tribunal lacked the power to conduct.

The Tribunal examined the issue of long-term capital gain and investment under Section 54EC. It was found that the appellant did not invest the entire capital gains in the specified asset, leading to the application of clause (b) of Section 54EC(1). The Tribunal emphasized that splitting a single transaction to claim additional benefits was impermissible. The Tribunal highlighted the mandatory nature of Section 50C for valuation, emphasizing the need to compute capital gains accurately for claiming exemptions under Section 54EC. The Tribunal reiterated that adherence to statutory provisions is crucial and artificial maneuvers to gain advantages are unacceptable.

The Tribunal underscored that when an appeal is filed, the entire matter is under its purview, allowing it to pass appropriate orders even if it benefits a non-appealing party. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized its duty to dispense justice based on fair play and legal principles. It clarified that seeking a review of its order was beyond its jurisdiction, especially when no error was evident. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition, affirming the original order's validity.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's Miscellaneous Petition, emphasizing its duty to uphold legal principles and dispense justice fairly. The Tribunal reiterated the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and rejected attempts to manipulate transactions for undue benefits. The decision highlighted the Tribunal's role in ensuring justice and maintaining consistency in its orders, guided by legal precedents and principles of fairness.