9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2013 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - mistake apparent on the record - HELD THAT - Assessee has filed miscellaneous application running into 17 pages. Apart from the long and detailed miscellaneous application Ld.A.R. has also argued the Miscellaneous Application for more than 3 days has taken us through the various decisions cited in the Miscellaneous Applications which itself shows that the alleged mistakes for which rectification is sought by the assessee through the present Miscellaneous Applications are not visible and patent but the alleged mistakes are such for which elaborate reasoning or enquiry is essential. In the light of the various decisions cited hereinabove the alleged mistakes as pointed out in the MA cannot be considered to be mistake apparent from record as contemplated u/s 254(2) of the Act. In the present case we also find that while deciding the appeal of the Assessee the coordinate Bench of tribunal has considered the submissions made by the Assessee. The Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Earnest Exports Ltd 2010 (2) TMI 261 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that the power under section 254(2) is confined to a rectification of a mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal must confine itself within those parameters. Section 254(2) is not a carte blanche for the Tribunal to change its own view by substituting a view which it believes should have been taken in the first instance. Section 254(2) is not a mandate to unsettle decisions taken after due reflection. The provision empowers the Tribunal to correct mistakes errors and omissions apparent on the face. The section is not an avenue to revive a proceeding by recourse to a disingenuous argument nor does it contemplate a fresh look at a decision recorded on the merits however appealing an alternate view may seem. Unless a sense of restraint is observed judicial discipline would be the casualty. That is not what Parliament envisaged. (emphasis supplied by us). What the assessee intends to seek in the present case is the review of the order which according to us is not permissible under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. If we accept the present petition of the Assessee then it will tantamount to review of the order of the Tribunal and the law is well settled that power to review is beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged failure to consider relevant evidences and explanations. 2. Alleged failure to consider case laws cited by the assessee. 3. Alleged incorrect recording of facts. 4. Alleged failure to apply the principles of the Evidence Act. 5. Alleged failure to provide reasoning in the decision. 6. Alleged mistake in the names of representatives. 7. Alleged failure to consider the decision of the Supreme Court and High Courts. 8. Alleged errors in calculation of peak credit. 9. Alleged failure to adjudicate specific grounds of appeal. 10. Alleged improper reassessment order influenced by the Investigation Wing. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Failure to Consider Relevant Evidences and Explanations: The assessee contended that the Tribunal overlooked relevant evidences, specifically the report of the Assessing Officer (AO) about loan entries in seized diaries from the Chhoriya group, which was accepted by the Department while assessing the undisclosed income of the Chhoriya Group. The Tribunal was requested to recall the order confirming the addition as it was considered a mistake apparent from the record. However, the Tribunal found that the alleged mistakes required elaborate reasoning and inquiry, which is beyond the scope of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. 2. Alleged Failure to Consider Case Laws Cited by the Assessee: The assessee argued that the Tribunal did not consider various case laws cited during the appeal. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of Pothina Venkateshwara Swamy Vs ACIT [2014] 369 ITR 639 (T&AP), which held that it is not necessary for the Tribunal to address every aspect in detail. If the Tribunal is silent on any aspect, it can be deemed to have concurred with the lower authorities. The Tribunal concluded that failure to mention every case law does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. 3. Alleged Incorrect Recording of Facts: The assessee pointed out that the Tribunal recorded incorrect facts, such as the names of representatives. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake but did not find it sufficient to recall the entire order. The Tribunal emphasized that such clerical errors do not affect the substantive decision of the case. 4. Alleged Failure to Apply the Principles of the Evidence Act: The assessee claimed that the Tribunal failed to apply the principles of the Evidence Act, particularly section 114 illustration [g]. The Tribunal reiterated that the power under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to re-evaluating evidence or applying legal principles afresh. 5. Alleged Failure to Provide Reasoning in the Decision: The assessee argued that the Tribunal did not provide its own reasoning and simply concurred with the lower authorities. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Karam Chand Thapar And Bros. P. Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 535 (SC), which held that the Tribunal’s decision should not be scrutinized sentence by sentence. The Tribunal concluded that its decision was based on due consideration of the submissions and evidence. 6. Alleged Mistake in the Names of Representatives: The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake in recording the names of representatives but did not find it a sufficient ground to recall the order. The Tribunal noted that such clerical errors do not affect the substantive decision of the case. 7. Alleged Failure to Consider the Decision of the Supreme Court and High Courts: The assessee cited several decisions, including those of the Supreme Court, which were allegedly not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that failure to mention every cited decision does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Earnest Exports Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 577 (Bom), which held that section 254(2) is not a mandate to change the Tribunal’s view by substituting a new view. 8. Alleged Errors in Calculation of Peak Credit: The assessee pointed out calculation errors in the peak credit. The Tribunal noted that such errors required detailed examination and reasoning, which is beyond the scope of rectification under section 254(2). The Tribunal concluded that the alleged errors did not constitute mistakes apparent from the record. 9. Alleged Failure to Adjudicate Specific Grounds of Appeal: The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to adjudicate specific grounds of appeal. The Tribunal reiterated that failure to mention every ground does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Pearl Woolen Mills [2011] 330 ITR 164 (P&H), which held that the Tribunal’s power to review is limited. 10. Alleged Improper Reassessment Order Influenced by the Investigation Wing: The assessee contended that the reassessment order was influenced by the Investigation Wing and should be annulled. The Tribunal found that this issue required detailed examination and reasoning, which is beyond the scope of rectification under section 254(2). The Tribunal concluded that the alleged influence did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed both Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2002-03 and A.Y. 2008-09, finding that the alleged mistakes were not apparent from the record and required detailed examination, which is beyond the scope of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that its power under section 254(2) is limited to rectifying obvious and patent mistakes and does not extend to reviewing or re-evaluating the substantive decision.
|
