2019 (6) TMI 656 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s. 254(2) - Unexplained jewellery - whether jewellery found in search belonged to daughter in law ? - HELD THAT - We find that assessee in this case is seeking review of the order of the Tribunal in income tax appeal 2017 (9) TMI 956 - ITAT MUMBAI . ITAT was very much conscious about the assessee s claim that the jewellery belongs to daughter in law. However, ITAT considered it an afterthought. Now assessee seeks that the said order may be reviewed and assessee s claim accepted. The assessee also submits that case law relied by the ITAT in the M.A. actually helps the assessee. We find that the assessee is clearly seeking review of the order by the assessee which is not permissible under the Act. No cogency whatsoever in the submission of the assessee. The assessee by any means wants a review of the ITAT order and acceptance of its claim which was rejected as an afterthought. This is not at all permissible in an Miscellaneous Application.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act in a Miscellaneous Application order.
2. Consideration of affidavit claiming jewellery ownership in an Income Tax Appeal.
3. Referral and reliance on a High Court decision in the Income Tax Appeal.
4. Permissibility of seeking review of a Tribunal order through a Miscellaneous Application.

Analysis:

1. The appellant sought rectification of a mistake under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act in a Miscellaneous Application order. The appellant contended that an earlier Miscellaneous Application had been filed, stating that the jewellery found during a search belonged to the daughter-in-law, which was considered an afterthought by the ITAT. The appellant requested a fresh hearing, claiming that the ITAT had wrongly interpreted the situation.

2. In response, the Departmental Representative argued against permitting the rectification, stating that the Act does not allow Miscellaneous Applications against other Miscellaneous Applications. The Departmental Representative maintained that the ITAT had already examined the appellant's submission and deemed it an afterthought. The Departmental Representative opposed the appellant's request for a review, asserting that the appellant was attempting to change the findings under the guise of rectifying a mistake.

3. The Tribunal carefully considered the appellant's plea for a review of the order in an Income Tax Appeal. The ITAT had acknowledged the appellant's claim regarding the jewellery ownership but considered it an afterthought. The appellant sought a review of the order, emphasizing that the case law referred to by the ITAT favored the appellant's position.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's attempt to seek a review of the order was impermissible under the Act. The Tribunal noted that the same issue had been addressed in a previous Miscellaneous Application, and there was no merit in the appellant's argument for a fresh hearing. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, stating that the appellant's objective was to secure a review and acceptance of a claim previously rejected as an afterthought, which was not permissible through a Miscellaneous Application.