2018 (10) TMI 1878 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 254 - tribunal considering the fact recorded by the Assessing Officer, inter alia held that the assessee has not carried out any activities in connection with agricultural activity, as provided under explanations of section 80P(4), its activities are purely a commercial banking activity - HELD THAT - From the various judgements of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, it is clear, that the Tribunal s power u/s. 254(2) is not to review its earlier order, but only to amend it with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. An error apparent on the record means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need a long drawn out process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. The error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. If the view accepted by the Tribunal in the impugned order is one of possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record. Since the assessee is not able to exactly point out the mistake apparent from the record, the MP is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 80P(4) regarding activities related to agricultural activity.
2. Determination of eligibility for benefits under section 80P(2)(A)(i) for a co-operative society providing credit facilities.
3. Scope of the Appellate Tribunal's power under section 254(2) to rectify mistakes in the earlier order.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a Miscellaneous Petition challenging the tribunal's order regarding the eligibility of the assessee for benefits under section 80P(2)(A)(i) for the assessment year 2014-15. The tribunal found that the assessee, a co-operative society, was primarily engaged in commercial banking activities rather than agricultural activities as required under section 80P(4). Relying on the Supreme Court decision in a similar case, it was held that the assessee could not be considered a co-operative society solely for its members and providing credit facilities, thus not entitled to the tax benefits under section 80P(2)(A)(i).

2. The tribunal, in its analysis, emphasized the limitations of its power under section 254(2) to rectify mistakes in the earlier order. It clarified that the power is not for a review but for amending the order to correct any apparent errors on the face of the record. An error apparent on the record should be one that is immediately noticeable and does not require extensive reasoning or external evidence to demonstrate its incorrectness. Since the assessee failed to identify a specific mistake in the record, the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed.

3. The judgment highlighted the importance of clear identification of errors for invoking the tribunal's power under section 254(2). It underscored that a mere disagreement with the tribunal's decision or interpretation does not constitute a mistake apparent on the record. The decision to dismiss the Miscellaneous Petition was based on the lack of a demonstrated error that met the criteria of being apparent without the need for further analysis or additional evidence. Thus, the tribunal upheld its original order, emphasizing the need for precision in identifying and rectifying errors in legal proceedings.