2018 (4) TMI 1471 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Held that - The Tribunal in its wisdom and by taking overall view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case thought it just to follow the judgment rendered in the case of Pooja Construction Company (1998 (8) TMI 111 - ITAT AMRITSAR). This judicial discretion exercised by the Tribunal cannot be construed to be an error on the face of record which could be rectified by resorting to Section 254(2) of the Act. The order of the Tribunal impugned in this appeal is well reasoned order and supported by judicial precedents and therefore does not call for any interference by this Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Rectification of mistakes apparent from the record.
4. Application of net profit rate on gross receipts in assessment.

Issue 1: Appeal against ITAT Order
The appeal was filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 30.09.2016, which dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant challenged the order on the grounds of misinterpretation of Section 254(2) by the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 254(2)
Section 254(2) empowers the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record within four years from the date of the order. The Tribunal can exercise this power suo motu or upon being informed by the assessee or Assessing Officer. The rectification is limited to correcting errors that are evident from the record.

Issue 3: Rectification of Mistakes
The appellant sought rectification of the ITAT order, claiming that a relevant judgment was not considered. However, the Tribunal found that it had considered all facts and precedents before upholding the assessment order. The Tribunal concluded that the judgment cited did not warrant rectification as it was not a mistake apparent from the record.

Issue 4: Net Profit Rate Application
The dispute revolved around the application of a 10% net profit rate on the gross receipts by the Assessing Authority. The CIT (A) reduced it to 6%, but the Tribunal reinstated the 10% rate. The Tribunal exercised judicial discretion in following a precedent that it deemed more applicable to the case, emphasizing that each case's facts and circumstances must be considered individually.

In summary, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the ITAT order, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and supported by judicial precedents. The Court upheld the Tribunal's exercise of judicial discretion in applying the net profit rate and concluded that the judgment cited by the appellant did not mandate rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.