9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal's decision in a miscellaneous application amounted to a review of its own order, which is impermissible under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved a question regarding the Tribunal's decision on the exemption claim under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the sale of a house in Bombay. Initially, the Tribunal rejected the claim, stating that the property was owned by an artificial juridical person and lacked evidence on floor area occupancy. Subsequently, in a rectification application, the Tribunal altered its findings, stating that the property was owned by a Hindu undivided family and the capital gain was long-term. The issue was whether this alteration constituted a review or rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Court noted that the original findings were based on a misapprehension, as the Income-tax Officer and Commissioner had already determined the property ownership and nature of capital gain. The Tribunal's rectification aligned with these earlier findings, unchallenged by the Department or the assessee. As per Section 254(2), the Tribunal can rectify mistakes within four years of the order if brought to its notice. Therefore, the rectification in this case was permissible under the Act, not a review of the earlier order. In conclusion, the Court held that the Tribunal's decision in the miscellaneous application did not amount to a review but was a valid rectification of a mistake, as allowed by Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the case.
|
