2016 (10) TMI 716 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Tribunal not adjudicated the submission of the assessee that at the time of grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) should not consider applicability of the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act - Held that - The assessee-society had neither raised ground to the effect that registration u/s 12AA cannot be denied, considering the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act, nor the assessee-society has filed any evidence that pleading was made to this effect. The provisions of section 254(2) cannot be exercised to re-argue the matter afresh on different grounds or reasoning. The present Miscellaneous Petition is premised on the material which is not part of the record of the case. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present Miscellaneous Petition is not maintainable as the assessee had failed to make out any mistake which is apparent from record which is capable of being rectified under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act.

Issues:
1. Allegation of non-adjudication of submission by the assessee regarding registration u/s 12AA at the time of grant of registration.
2. Application of section 254(2) for re-arguing the matter on different grounds.
3. Interpretation of "mistake apparent from the record" under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1:
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Petition alleging that the Tribunal did not adjudicate the submission that the Director of Income-tax should not consider section 13(1)(b) provisions at the time of granting registration u/s 12AA. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not raised this ground in the appeal or provided any evidence supporting this claim. Citing the Hon’ble Madras High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that section 254(2) cannot be used to introduce new arguments not raised earlier. The Tribunal concluded that the petition was not maintainable as the alleged mistake was not apparent from the record.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal analyzed the scope of section 254(2) in light of various judicial precedents. It highlighted that the power under this section is to rectify mistakes apparent from the record, not to review or re-argue matters already decided. The Tribunal explained that for a mistake to be rectified under this section, it must be manifest, clear, and not debatable. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification is not possible for debatable issues or points not previously examined. It clarified that the purpose of section 254(2) is to correct manifest errors that cause prejudice to parties due to the Tribunal's mistake, ensuring fairness in the proceedings.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of "mistake apparent from the record" within the context of taxation laws. It explained that a mistake must be visible, obvious, and incapable of argument to qualify for rectification under section 254(2). The Tribunal highlighted that a mistake must be discernible from the facts of each case and must be manifest on the face of the record. It clarified that the mere existence of an error is not sufficient for rectification; the mistake must be clear and evident without the need for elaborate reasoning or debate. The Tribunal underscored the importance of ensuring that rectification under section 254(2) is based on objective and discernible errors apparent from the record.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition as the alleged mistake was not apparent from the record and did not meet the criteria for rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining fairness and clarity in tax proceedings by rectifying only manifest errors that cause prejudice to parties involved.

← Previous Next →