9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 925 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 254 - rectification v/s review - date in final penalty order u/s 271AAB was wrongly mentioned as 29/09/2016 instead of 30/09/2016 - HELD THAT - As decided in DCIT vs M/s Sportking India Ltd, Ludhiana 2020 (2) TMI 898 - ITAT CHANDIGARH . Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. However, it is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified as A.O. passed the penalty order under section 271AAB of the Act, on 29/09/2016 while the approval was granted by the Joint Commissioner / Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range on 30/09/2016 and the order dated 22/04/2019 was passed after considering those facts on record, so there is no mistake apparent from the record for the purpose of rectification under section 254 - M.As filed by the Department are hereby dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty orders under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Requirement of prior approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) before imposing penalties. 3. Typographical errors in penalty orders and their rectification under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The scope of rectification under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Penalty Orders under Section 271AAB: The Department filed Miscellaneous Applications challenging the ITAT's decision to declare penalty orders void ab initio. The penalties were imposed under Section 271AAB for undisclosed income discovered during a search conducted on 24.10.2013. The ITAT had previously ruled that the penalties were invalid because the Assessing Officer (AO) imposed them without obtaining prior approval from the JCIT, as required by the law. 2. Requirement of Prior Approval from JCIT: The ITAT emphasized that Section 274 of the Income Tax Act mandates prior approval from the JCIT before imposing penalties under Section 271AAB. The penalty orders in question were dated 29.09.2016, while the JCIT's approval was granted on 30.09.2016. The ITAT held that the use of the word "shall" in the statute makes it mandatory to obtain prior approval, and thus, the penalty orders were void ab initio since they were passed before the approval was obtained. 3. Typographical Errors in Penalty Orders and Rectification under Section 292B: The Department argued that the date discrepancy in the penalty orders was merely a typographical error. The draft penalty orders were dated 29.09.2016, and the JCIT's approval was given on 30.09.2016. The Department contended that the final penalty orders erroneously retained the draft order date due to a clerical mistake. They cited Section 292B, which allows for the rectification of such errors if the substance and effect of the order conform to the intent and purpose of the Act. However, the ITAT found no merit in this argument, as the penalty orders were fundamentally flawed due to the lack of prior approval. 4. Scope of Rectification under Section 254: The Department sought rectification of the ITAT's order under Section 254, arguing that the ITAT had overlooked the typographical nature of the error. The ITAT reiterated that it has no power to review its own order under Section 254, which only allows for rectification of apparent mistakes. The ITAT referred to precedents, including rulings from the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which clarified that rectification under Section 254 does not equate to a review or recall of an order. The ITAT concluded that the Department's applications were essentially seeking a review, not a rectification, and thus dismissed them. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the Department's Miscellaneous Applications, upholding its earlier decision that the penalty orders were void ab initio due to the lack of prior approval from the JCIT. The ITAT also clarified that typographical errors do not invalidate an order if the substance conforms to the Act, but in this case, the error was not merely typographical but a fundamental procedural flaw. The ITAT emphasized that it cannot review its own orders under the guise of rectification.
|
