9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 509 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 254 - obvious and patent mistake as apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points - HELD THAT - Assessee through the miscellaneous application has tried to re-argue the case and grounds raised in Miscellaneous Application are nothing but seeking before the Tribunal to review its own order which is not permissible within the purview of the Miscellaneous Application filed u/s.254(2) Assessee is seeking review of the order of Tribunal, which is beyond the scope of powers as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. In view of the above and as per the Miscellaneous Application filed before us, we do not find any mistake, much less any apparent mistake that warrants rectification in the order of Tribunal dated 25.08.2020. The Tribunal in its own wisdom had adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on merits. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly adjudicated the issue after considering all the documents placed on record. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application filed by assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit.Miscellaneous Application filed by assessee is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Rectification sought by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the order of the Tribunal dated 25.08.2020. Detailed Analysis: The Miscellaneous Application was filed by the assessee seeking rectification in the order of the Tribunal dated 25.08.2020 under section 254(2) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee attempted to re-argue the case through the application, which was deemed impermissible as it was essentially seeking a review of the Tribunal's decision. The Ld. AR failed to identify any apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order, as required by section 254(2) of the Act. On the contrary, the Ld. DR strongly opposed the application, stating that the Tribunal's order was well-reasoned and did not warrant any rectification. It was argued that the Ld. AR was essentially trying to re-argue the matter under the guise of rectification, which exceeded the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and reviewed the order dated 25.08.2020. It was noted that various decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts have clarified the scope of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal highlighted that rectification can only be made for obvious and patent mistakes that are apparent from the record, not for errors that require extensive arguments or reasoning. Reference was made to a decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, emphasizing the limited scope of rectification under section 254(2). Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to another case by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, which stated that the scope of rectification under section 254(2) is restricted to correcting mistakes apparent from the record, not errors of judgment. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was essentially seeking a review of the Tribunal's order, which fell outside the powers granted under section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal found no mistake, let alone an apparent mistake, that warranted rectification in the order dated 25.08.2020. The Tribunal upheld its decision on the merits of the appeal and dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee for lacking merit. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, affirming that no rectification was necessary in the order dated 25.08.2020. The Tribunal determined that the appeal had been adjudicated properly, considering all relevant documents, and upheld its decision after due consideration. The dismissal of the application was based on the absence of any apparent mistake justifying rectification.
|
