2016 (4) TMI 263 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - ITAT rejected ROM application - Held that - It is clear from the facts recorded herein above that the Tribunal had no occasion to consider and/or deal with the pages 1 to 90 filed before the CIT(A), which the Petitioner states it a part of the Paperbook II. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal in refusing to consider those documents as they were never a part of the proceedings which lead to the order dated 12th October, 2012. The proceedings for rectification are not a proceeding to recall the order so as to have the matter reheard on merits by relying upon the evidence which were never produced before the Tribunal. In the above view, on merits, we find no fault with order of the Tribunal in rejecting the Petitioner s rectification application dated 12th October, 2012 and further taking into account the conduct of the Petitioner, we see no reason to entertain the Petition.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting rectification application based on additional documents filed during appeal proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed additional documents in the form of two Paper books during the appeal proceedings. Paperbook I contained written submissions and previous judgments, while Paperbook II included orders from different proceedings. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal did not consider these documents in the order dated 12th October, 2012. A rectification application was filed, but the Tribunal rejected it on 12th May, 2015, stating that Paperbook I had no impact on the decision and Paperbook II was not filed during the appeal. The petitioner claimed that Paperbook II was indeed submitted, including pages 1 to 90, which were crucial. The Tribunal's Registrar confirmed the existence of only two Paper books, with Paperbook II containing the Tribunal's order for Assessment Year 1996-97.

The petitioner presented an affidavit and a communication from their advocate, asserting the submission of Paperbook II with pages 1 to 90 to the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal's records and the advocate's communication did not mention the number of pages in Paperbook II. The Court noted discrepancies in the petitioner's claims and the available records, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure. The Court concluded that as the documents in question were not part of the original proceedings leading to the Tribunal's order, the rectification process cannot be used to introduce new evidence for a rehearing on merits.

In light of the above, the Court found no fault in the Tribunal's decision to reject the rectification application. Considering the petitioner's conduct and the lack of merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed the petition without costs.