2015 (6) TMI 1203 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - scope and ambit of application u/s 254(2) - Wrong or erroneous recording and consideration of facts Non-adjudication/Non-consideration of claim/ argument / submission of the assessee and All case laws cited and relied by assessee were not considered and discussed by the Tribunal in its order - HELD THAT - It is not the case that the main appeal of the assessees were disposed off without granting opportunity to the assessee rather the order has been passed by the Tribunal by objectively considering the facts and material available on record and that too after hearing both the parties. Through these miscellaneous applications in our humble opinion the assessee is trying to get the order reviewed which is not permissible u/s 254(2) of the Act. The expression mistake apparent on record it is well settled means a mistake either clerical grammatical arithmetical or of like nature which can be detected without there being any necessity to reargue the matter or to reappraise the facts as appearing from the record can only be rectified. Likewise the possibility of forming of a different opinion then the one expressed in the order passed u/s 254(1) cannot be treated as ground for entertaining the application u/s 254(2) of the Act. We find that under the facts and circumstances available on record possibly the order was passed by the Tribunal after considering the arguments from both sides. Once the possible view has been taken on the basis of material available on record it cannot be said there is apparent mistake in the order which can be rectified u/s 254(2). See ANAMIKA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 2001 (5) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and POPULAR ENGINEERING CO. 2001 (1) TMI 76 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Totality of facts clearly indicates that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal. Even otherwise the order was passed by the Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced from both sides with high sense of responsibility and as mentioned earlier through these applications the assessee is merely trying to get the orders reviewed/recalled which is not permissible u/s 254(2) - Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessees are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of consolidated order by different assessees under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising from ITA Nos. 3544, 3545, and 3546/Mum/2011.

Analysis:

1. Issue A - Recording and Consideration of Facts:
The main contention revolves around the erroneous recording and consideration of facts by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the documents forming the basis of the assessments were indeed provided to the assessees, and the information contained therein was made available to them. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had access to relevant information but chose not to disclose it. The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent from the record in this regard, and the applications were rejected.

2. Issue B - Non-Adjudication of Assessee's Claims:
The assessees argued that no amounts were deposited during the relevant assessment year, the trust was discretionary with no taxable event, and being a non-resident trust, no addition could be made. The Tribunal found these arguments lacking in supporting evidence and not resulting in any apparent mistake. The absence of a trust deed and lack of evidence regarding deposits undermined the assessees' claims, leading to the rejection of their pleas.

3. Issue C - Consideration of Case Laws:
The assessees contended that the Tribunal did not consider various case laws cited by them. The Tribunal clarified that it is not obligatory to discuss each case law as long as they are duly noted and considered before reaching a decision. The Tribunal confirmed that relevant case laws were indeed examined, and the contention of the assessees was deemed factually incorrect.

4. Issue D - Recording of Trust Creation Date:
A mistake was pointed out regarding the date of creation of the Ambrunova Trust in the Tribunal's order. However, the correct date did not affect the Tribunal's decision, and it was deemed immaterial. The Tribunal concluded that the mistake in recording the date did not warrant rectification.

5. Issue E - Consideration of US Senate Report:
The assessees raised concerns about the Tribunal's reliance on the US Senate report without proper discussion. The Tribunal clarified that the report had been referred to by the Assessing Officer and that the assessees had the opportunity to address this issue earlier in the proceedings. The Tribunal found no merit in the contention and dismissed the applications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the limited scope of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act, stating that only mistakes apparent from the record could be rectified. The Tribunal highlighted that the orders were passed after due consideration of arguments from both sides and that seeking a review through miscellaneous applications was not permissible. The applications filed by the assessees were ultimately dismissed.