2018 (8) TMI 1641 - AT - Income Tax

Apparent mistake rectifiable under section 254(2) - Held that - It is to be remembered that an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under section 254 (2) of the Act. Similarly, failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion, is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. The mere fact that the Tribunal has not allowed a deduction/claim/rebate,even if the conclusion is wrong, will be no ground for moving an application under section 254(2) of the Act. Further, in the garb of an application for rectification, the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of section 254 (2) of the Act. Failed to file the paper book and other documents during the course of hearing, before the Bench, is not a mistake apparent from record, therefore, we dismiss the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee. Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Mistake apparent from record under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Recalling order due to failure to file paper book before the Bench.

Analysis:
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to rectify a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order dated 27.07.2017. The application stated that the assessee failed to submit relevant papers and the paper book during the hearing, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The assessee requested to recall the order, now having prepared the necessary documents to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal considered the request and the arguments presented by both parties.

The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the failure to file the paper book was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. However, the Revenue's representative contended that allowing the recall based on fresh documents would amount to reviewing the order, which is not permitted under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal deliberated on the submissions and reviewed the material on record.

The Tribunal emphasized that it can only rectify mistakes apparent from the record and not review its own orders. It noted that allowing the recall based on the failure to file the paper book would set a precedent for continuous requests for order recalls. The Tribunal highlighted that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent, not a debatable legal point. In this case, the failure to file the paper book was not considered a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal reiterated that it lacks review jurisdiction and cannot rectify oversights or errors of judgment. It clarified that not considering an argument or disallowing a deduction does not constitute a rectifiable mistake under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the failure to file the paper book during the hearing does not qualify as a mistake apparent from the record and dismissed the assessee's Miscellaneous Application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's Miscellaneous Application on the grounds that the failure to file the paper book and other documents during the hearing did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification under section 254(2) is limited to correcting obvious errors and not for reopening or rearguing the entire matter beyond its scope.