9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 27 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s.271(1)(c) - whether barred by limitation - whether the issue of limitation was not dealt by the ld. CIT(A) - recalling the order - Held that - From the order of the CIT(A), it transpires that the ld.CIT(A) stated that the assessee was unable to substantiate this ground of facts without mentioning the relevant facts of the case. Hence, there is merit into the contention of assessee that order of ld. CIT(A) is nonspeaking on this issue. Further, it was observed by ld. CIT(A) that in support of contention, assessee relied upon the decision of Navjivan Oil mills 2001 (7) TMI 81 - GUJARAT High Court and Dilip N Shroff vs. JCIT 2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME Court In the entire order of the ld. CIT(A), he has not discussed the facts of the case, which were relied by counsel for the assessee during course of hearing before him. Ld. CIT(A) has simply stated that the case laws as relied by assessee are distinguishable on facts. It is settled position of law that the appellate authority is required to give its finding on the judgments as relied by counsel merely stating that the decisions relied are distinguishable on facts would not be sufficient. Under these facts, we do not find any merit into the application moved by the Revenue. Moreover, the revenue has not pointed out any mistake apparent from the record. The ground taken for recalling the order is that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the facts on record. The grounds as taken in the present application do not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 254 of the Act, as it would tantamount to review of the order. Decided against revenue
Issues:
1. Recalling of the order dated 28.02.2014 in ITA No. 3462/Ahd/2010 for Assessment Years 2003-04. 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal was erroneous and contrary to the facts on record. 3. Whether the issue of limitation was adequately addressed by the ld. CIT(A). Analysis: Issue 1: Recalling of the order The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking the recalling of the order dated 28.02.2014 in ITA No. 3462/Ahd/2010 for Assessment Years 2003-04. The Revenue contended that there was a factual mistake in the order, pointing out that the ld. CIT(A) had not given findings on certain decisions relied upon by the assessee. The Revenue argued that the order was erroneous and contrary to the facts on record. However, the Tribunal found that the ld. CIT(A) had indeed considered the relevant case laws but had not provided detailed findings on them. The Tribunal held that the appellate authority must give specific findings on the judgments relied upon, and merely stating that they are distinguishable on facts is insufficient. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's application did not point out any mistake apparent from the record, and seeking a review of the order was beyond the scope of Section 254 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application. Issue 2: Erroneous order and contrary to facts The Revenue argued that the order of the Tribunal was erroneous and contrary to the facts on record. They contended that the ld. CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the issue of limitation raised by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the ld. CIT(A) had mentioned that the assessee failed to substantiate the ground of limitation without providing relevant facts. The Tribunal observed that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the facts of the case relied upon by the assessee during the hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that the ld. CIT(A) must give detailed findings on the judgments cited by the parties. As the Revenue failed to demonstrate any mistake apparent from the record, the Tribunal held that the grounds for recalling the order did not fall within the scope of Section 254 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application. Issue 3: Adequacy of addressing the issue of limitation The issue of limitation was a crucial aspect raised by the assessee. The Tribunal acknowledged that the ld. CIT(A) had mentioned the inability of the assessee to substantiate the ground of limitation without specifying the relevant facts. The Tribunal highlighted that the ld. CIT(A) did not delve into the facts of the case as relied upon by the assessee during the hearing. The Tribunal stressed that the ld. CIT(A) should have provided detailed findings on the judgments cited by the assessee. Since the Revenue failed to establish any mistake apparent from the record, the Tribunal concluded that the grounds for recalling the order did not align with the provisions of Section 254 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue, emphasizing that seeking a review of the order was not permissible under the law, as the grounds did not fall within the ambit of Section 254 of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of demonstrated mistakes apparent from the record and the necessity for detailed findings on the case laws relied upon by the parties.
|
