2018 (5) TMI 1079 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification application filed U/s 154 dismissed - application barred by limitation being filed after expiry of 4 years from the date of order dated 10.09.2004 - Held that - No material/evidence to establish it beyond doubt that the assessee has filed alleged application u/s 154 of the Act on 08.09.2008. Even at the time of this miscellaneous application the assessee has not produced any document or record to prove that the alleged application u/s 154 of the Act dated 08.09.2008 was filed before the ld. CIT(A). The claim of the assessee was verified from the letter received register and appeal received register maintained in the office of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, when the alleged application was not found to be received in the office as per the record maintained by the ld. CIT(A) then, in the absence of any evidence to establish beyond that the said application was filed by the assessee, the decision taken by the Tribunal on the basis of fact of the case cannot be said to have suffered from any error merely on the basis of the contentions and submissions which is nothing but assumption of facts - application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Recalling of tribunal order based on alleged mistake apparent on record in not considering detailed factual submissions and affidavits, application filed under Section 154, rejection of application by CIT(A) on grounds of limitation, contention of rectification application being a reminder, Tribunal's consideration of facts and contentions, absence of fresh evidence to establish application filing.

Analysis:
The appellant sought the recalling of the tribunal order, claiming a mistake apparent on record due to non-consideration of detailed factual submissions and affidavits supporting the application filed under Section 154. The appellant argued that the stamp of the office of the CIT(A) on the application dated 08.09.2008 should have been accepted as proof, despite the lack of a proper receipt. The tribunal had confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that there was no acknowledgment of the filing of the alleged rectification petition. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support the contention that important aspects were overlooked by the tribunal, necessitating a rectification. The respondent, however, opposed the application, stating that the tribunal had considered all relevant facts and contentions before deciding the appeal on its merits, without any apparent mistake on record.

The controversy in the appeal revolved around an application filed under Section 154 on 18.02.2011, dismissed by the CIT(A) as time-barred. The appellant argued that this application was a mere reminder of a previous petition filed on 08.09.2008, which the tribunal should have considered. The tribunal, in its order, reproduced the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the application, emphasizing the factual nature of the issue. The tribunal recorded the contentions of both parties, highlighting the appellant's arguments regarding the rectification application and penalty deletion in a related matter. The tribunal's detailed analysis of the issue included examination of the existence and timing of the application, as well as the statutory limitations under Section 154(7) of the Act.

The tribunal extensively discussed the factual matrix of the issue, emphasizing the lack of evidence to establish the filing of the alleged application under Section 154 on 08.09.2008. Despite the appellant's claims and reliance on the stamp of the CIT(A)'s office, the tribunal found no conclusive proof of the application's submission. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the absence of verifiable evidence and the statutory limitations prescribed under the Act. The appellant's failure to provide fresh evidence to substantiate their claims led the tribunal to dismiss the miscellaneous application, as it lacked merit or substance. The tribunal's decision was based on the factual findings and the absence of concrete proof supporting the appellant's contentions.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, upholding its original order and emphasizing the importance of verifiable evidence in legal proceedings. The detailed analysis of the issue, including statutory provisions and factual considerations, guided the tribunal's decision, highlighting the significance of substantiated claims in seeking rectifications or recalling of orders.