2015 (11) TMI 1431 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Held that - The assessee is merely criticizing certain observations of the Tribunal in its order dated 31.7.2013 and the action of the Tribunal in not following the decisions cited by the assessee, but following certain other decisions. An overall reading of the order of this Tribunal dated 31.7.2013 clearly reflects the consideration of all the contentions of the parties, including the decisions relied upon by them. No specific mistake apparent from record which has crept into the order of the Tribunal, warranting rectification/recall, has been brought out by the assessee. By the elaborate contentions in the present application, assessee is merely seeking a review of our order dated 31.7.2013, by criticizing the action of the Tribunal in following of certain decisions and not following certain others, which is not permissible in these proceedings under S.254(2) of the Act, the scope of which is confined to mere rectification of obvious/patent mistakes apparent from record, which might have crept into an order of the Tribunal. In the absence of any such mistakes specifically pointed out by the assessee in the present application, the same is liable to be rejected as devoid of merit. We do so accordingly and reject the application of the assessee. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of order by ITAT

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought rectification/recall of the order of the ITAT dated 31.7.2013 in ITA No.1428/Hyd/2012 of the Revenue and ITA No.1269/Hyd/2012 of the assessee, alleging mistakes apparent from the record.

2. The applicant's counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in not adopting the value of the property as on 1.4.81 before indexation, as per the grounds in the appeal. The counsel highlighted mistakes in the Tribunal's order, such as a suo motu observation regarding the registered valuer's impartiality and failure to follow relevant decisions, including one from the Bombay High Court. The counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal did not provide reasons for not following the cited decisions and overlooked a decision of the Hyderabad 'A' Bench.

3. The Departmental Representative contended that there were no apparent mistakes in the Tribunal's order and opposed the applicant's plea, deeming it meritless.

4. Upon reviewing the submissions and the order, the Tribunal found that the applicant's contentions were centered on criticizing the Tribunal's observations and decision-making process, rather than pointing out specific mistakes in the order. The Tribunal emphasized that the scope of rectification under S.254(2) of the Act is limited to correcting obvious errors in the order, which were not identified by the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application, stating that seeking a review of the order based on disagreement with decisions cited is not permissible under the rectification process.

5. The Tribunal pronounced its decision on 3.2.2014, rejecting the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee, thereby concluding the matter.