2018 (10) TMI 1590 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - mistake apparent from record - Held that - We find that the alleged error pointed out by the assessee while considering the issue in dispute, the Tribunal had detailed discussion on legal as well as on factual aspects and no fresh exercise is required. We find that the scope of sub-section (2) is restricted to rectifying any mistake in the order which is apparent from record and does not extend to reviewing of the earlier order. It is settled position of law that reconsidering the findings recorded, or reconsidering application of relevant provisions of law to facts of case, such a course is not permissible under section 254(2). Therefore, we are of the view that by pointing out the alleged apparent errors, relying on new found and repeated submissions, the assessee is trying to review and revisit entire order of the Tribunal, which is not permissible in law. We do not find any merit in this application of the assessee, because the issues agitated in the MA have already been examined and deliberated upon, and reached a conclusion on merit. MA, therefore, fails.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking recall and rectification of order regarding speculation loss.

Analysis:
The assessee filed a Misc. Application to recall and rectify the Tribunal's order concerning speculation loss. The application highlighted errors made by the Tribunal in adjudicating the issue. The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the first exception related to the composition of gross total income, as laid down in a specific case law. The assessee contended that the Tribunal wrongly concluded that the applicant's case did not fall within the exceptions outlined in the Explanation to section 73. The assessee's representative emphasized that the mistakes in the Tribunal's order were evident and required rectification.

Upon reviewing the impugned order and considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal noted that the power of rectification under section 254 of the Income Tax Act could only be exercised for obvious, patent mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that the alleged errors pointed out by the assessee had already been extensively discussed in the original order, covering legal and factual aspects. The Tribunal clarified that the scope of rectification was limited to correcting mistakes evident from the record and did not extend to reviewing the entire order. It was reiterated that reconsidering findings or the application of legal provisions to the case facts was impermissible under section 254(2). Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's attempt to review the order through the Misc. Application was not permissible in law, as the issues raised had already been thoroughly examined and decided upon. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Misc. Application, finding no merit in the assessee's contentions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld its original order, emphasizing that rectification could only address obvious mistakes and not serve as a means to revisit or review the entire decision. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Misc. Application reaffirmed the principle that once an order is passed and finalized, it cannot be subject to continuous review or reconsideration. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal principles and procedural limitations in seeking rectification of orders under the Income Tax Act.