2020 (12) TMI 168 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - deduction u/s 80IB - HELD THAT - As perusal of Audit Report noted that the same is unsigned and undated and that further held that there is no evidence to corroborate manufacturing activities commenced on 28.03.2004. All the material placed before our predecessor, were duly considered and on consideration has taken a plausible view. Assessee is now seeking the rectification of the order which is based on appreciation of evidence placed before the Tribunal. Assessee failed to bring any fact to our notice which may be considered as mistake apparent on record. The case laws relied for assessee in Nisha Synthetics Ltd. 2016 (12) TMI 1413 - SC ORDER is not helpful to the assessee as the same is based total different set of facts. In the said case, there was a dispute whether the documents were filed before the Tribunal or not, the Hon ble Court after considering the contention of the assessee directed Tribunal to consider the documents and pass the order afresh. In the present case, all the evidences furnished by assessee were duly considered and appreciated, therefore, the facts of the present case are quite different. Tribunal failed to advert even to basic facts and disposed of the appeal in in summary interfering with the order passed by authority. With utmost regards to the decisions of Hon ble Apex Court we have seen that in the cases in hand our predecessor passed the order considering the facts of the cases and the evidenced furnished by the assessee. Thus, we do not find any merit to interfere in order dated 17.02.2017 by invoking the provision of section 254(2) of the Act. Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of order dated 18.06.2018 passed in the appeals, errors in the order, eligibility of deduction under section 80IB, consideration of evidence on record, recall of the order, new contentions raised by the assessee, applicability of relevant case laws.

Analysis:

1. The assessee filed six Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification in the order dated 18.06.2018 passed in the appeals. The applications raised common grievances, and with the consent of parties, all were heard together. The lead case was MA No.174/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2005-06. The applicant pointed out errors in the order, specifically related to the deduction under section 80IB, citing factual inaccuracies in the Tribunal's decision.

2. The Learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee argued that the order was erroneous and should be recalled. The AR highlighted that the Tribunal's observations regarding the unsigned Audit Report and lack of evidence for manufacturing activities were factually incorrect. The AR presented various documents supporting the commencement of manufacturing activities from 28.03.2004, which were duly considered by the Assessing Officer.

3. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue supported the Tribunal's order, stating that there was no mistake apparent on record justifying a recall. The DR contended that the Tribunal had considered all evidence provided by the assessee and that the new contentions raised by the AR were time-barred and not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act.

4. The Tribunal deliberated on the contentions of both parties and reviewed the order passed by its predecessor on 17.02.2017. The Tribunal noted that the predecessor had considered all evidence and passed a plausible order. The AR failed to demonstrate any mistake apparent on record, and the case laws cited were deemed inapplicable due to the differing factual contexts.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, as it found no merit in interfering with the previous order. The dismissal applied to all six applications filed by the assessee, as they were based on similar grounds and arguments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld its previous decision, emphasizing that the order was based on a thorough consideration of the facts and evidence presented. The applications for rectification were dismissed, and the original order stood.