2013 (8) TMI 1131 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-consideration of evidence by the Tribunal.
2. Characterization of land as agricultural or non-agricultural.
3. Scope of rectification u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Summary:

1. Non-consideration of evidence by the Tribunal:
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Petition seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 17.10.2012, claiming a mistake apparent on record due to non-consideration of evidence. The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) and other relevant evidence while deciding the appeal.

2. Characterization of land as agricultural or non-agricultural:
The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that the land in question was not agricultural based on several factors, including the official website of the Government of Tamil Nadu categorizing the property as residential, the layout and road access provided, and the absence of agricultural income from the land since its purchase in 2004. The AO's findings were:
- The VAO's certificate was deemed insignificant compared to the official categorization.
- The layout and road access indicated non-agricultural use.
- The prohibitive cost and lack of agricultural income further supported the non-agricultural classification.

3. Scope of rectification u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal examined whether there was a mistake apparent on the record that warranted rectification u/s 254(2). The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to prove the land was agricultural. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification is permissible only for patent, manifest, and self-evident errors, not for debatable issues or to review its own order. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Express Newspapers Limited v. DCIT [2010] 320 ITR 12 (Mad), which clarified that rectification cannot be used to reargue the appeal or address debatable points.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's Miscellaneous Petition, as the alleged mistake did not qualify as an apparent error on the record. The petition was dismissed, affirming the AO's characterization of the land and the Tribunal's original decision. The order was pronounced on 20th August 2013 at Chennai.