2018 (5) TMI 2120 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - HELD THAT - Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Karam Chand Thapar Bros. Pvt. Ltd. 1989 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that the decision of the Tribunal has not to be scrutinized sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or whether some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been noticed by the Tribunal in its judgment. If the court on a fair reading of the judgment of the Tribunal finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with unless of course the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to state in its judgment specifically or in express words that it has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or has considered the totality of the facts as if that were a magic formula; if the judgment of the Tribunal shows that it has in fact done so there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Since in the present case we have already dealt with all the grounds raised by the assessee in the main appeal therefore after considering the grounds raised in para no. 2(a) to (d) the same are mis-conceived and we are of the view that no glaring obvious or patent mistake has been pointed out by the assessee which is apparent from the record therefore we are inclined to dismiss these grounds i.e. 2(a) to (d) filed by the assessee in all misc. applications. It is not correct to say that the representative of assessee has not pressed the issues in relation to the Sec. 153A before Ld. CIT(A) - We find that since we have already given a categorical finding in para no. 32 of the order dated 09.11.17 wherein it has been categorically mentioned that assessee had not taken any such ground nor had raised the issue earlier and even Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press the matter further. Nevertheless if this part of misc. application is allowed and the appeal of the assessee is restored qua this portion to be decided afresh then in our view no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the revenue whereas if the contrary view is taken then the rights of the assessee would be prejudiced. Be that as it may considering the facts of the present case we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in case we restore ground No. 3(a) to (c) raised by the assessee to be heard on merits qua this portion by regular bench. Therefore we recall our finding in para no. 32 of the order dated 09.11.17 and restore this portion of the appeals to be decided afresh. Hence the present M.A s qua recalling this portion of the order dated 09.11.17 stands partly allowed. Therefore registry is directed to fix the present appeals before regular bench and issue notices to both the parties for deciding these grounds on merits.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistakes in the order dated 09.11.17 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal regarding ITA No. 2920, 2415, 2417, 2418 & 2419/Mum/2015.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The applicant moved five Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification of mistakes in the order. The AR for the assessee argued that errors in the order adversely affected justice and pointed out mistakes in the application. The main contention was that no incriminating evidence was found for additions under section 153A, which is mandatory. The AR highlighted that the issue regarding section 153A was pressed before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, contrary to the Tribunal's mention that it was not pressed.

2. The DR for the revenue opposed the applications, stating that there were no apparent errors in the record, and the Tribunal had considered all grounds on merit. The DR argued that the grounds raised by the assessee were misconceived, and there were no errors to rectify. The Tribunal noted that the order passed previously was well-reasoned and detailed, and the power to rectify under section 254(2) is limited to correcting obvious and patent mistakes.

3. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to emphasize that the power of rectification is restricted to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record, not for re-hearing the case on merit. The scope of application of section 254(2) is limited, and recalling an order in its entirety is not permissible. The Tribunal cited judgments to support the view that if all relevant material is considered and no irrelevant material is taken into account, the decision of the Tribunal should not be interfered with unless it is perverse.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the grounds raised by the assessee in the applications and found that while some grounds were mis-conceived and dismissed, others related to recalling the orders passed. After considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to allow the recall of certain portions of the order dated 09.11.17 for further consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that restoring these grounds for fresh consideration would not prejudice the revenue's interest.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the applicant, recalling certain portions of the order for fresh consideration by the regular bench. The order was pronounced on 18th May 2018.