9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 546 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - addition u/s 68 - Held that - Tribunal has got limited power to rectify mistake u/s. 254(2) of the Act. In the case before us, the AO has not pointed out any arithmetical mistake in the order of the Tribunal nor has he proved that legal position taken by the Tribunal has altered because of subsequent judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional high court or the Hon ble Apex court. The Tribunal has decided the issue after considering all the facts and provisions of law. In our opinion, no mistake is apparent, in the impugned order of the Tribunal. We would also like to mention that the case of Jansampark(2015 (3) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT), relied upon by the DR has no relevance to decide the issue before us. The matter deals with section 68 of the Act and does not deal with scope of section 254(2)of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that application filed by the AO deserves to be rejected.
Issues:
1. Rectification of order under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Compliance with requisitioned documents by the assessee. 3. Tribunal's decision on the genuineness of the transaction. 4. Scope and limitations of section 254(2) of the Act for rectification. Issue 1: Rectification under section 254(2): The Assessing Officer (AO) filed an application for rectification of the Tribunal's order, citing mistakes and the need for verification under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee, deeming the transaction as genuine. The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the Tribunal had not addressed the issues raised by the AO and emphasized the need for verification and investigation. However, the Authorized Representative (AR) contended that all relevant documents were submitted, and the Tribunal had considered all arguments. The Tribunal, after thorough consideration of facts and legal positions, found in favor of the assessee, stating that the Department could challenge the order before the High Court if aggrieved. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of facts and legal precedents, and it was noted that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectifying apparent mistakes. Issue 2: Compliance with requisitioned documents: The DR argued that the assessee did not provide requisitioned documents, hindering the AO's investigation. In response, the AR stated that all relevant documents were submitted to the AO and refuted the claim of non-compliance. The Tribunal considered this aspect but ultimately focused on the merits of the case and the genuineness of the transaction rather than procedural compliance. Issue 3: Tribunal's decision on transaction genuineness: The Tribunal's decision on the genuineness of the transaction was based on a detailed examination of the facts, including the chain of events, valuation, and relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction entered by the assessee was genuine, considering various aspects such as delisting of shares, permissions, agreements, and valuations. The Tribunal's decision was supported by a thorough analysis of facts and legal principles, leading to the dismissal of the AO's application for rectification. Issue 4: Scope and limitations of section 254(2) for rectification: The Tribunal reiterated the limited scope of section 254(2) for rectification, emphasizing that it only applies to rectifying apparent mistakes such as arithmetical errors or non-consideration of relevant judgments. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to highlight that the power of rectification is not meant for reviewing or reconsidering decisions based on arguments that were not raised during the proceedings. In this case, the Tribunal found no apparent mistake in its order that warranted rectification, leading to the dismissal of the AO's application. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of facts, legal principles, and precedents, leading to the dismissal of the AO's application for rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.
|
