2021 (3) TMI 815 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - HELD THAT - There is no mistake apparent from record as per the submission of the assessee above. Assessee is seeking review of the order. Paragraph 13 14 of the above order duly considers the relevant aspect. ITAT has not considered ITAT Bangalore bench decision in the case of Texport Overseas Private Limited versus DCIT. 2018 (9) TMI 1977 - ITAT BANGALORE - In this regard it is noted that ITAT in the earlier part of its order has duly noted that the assessee has referred to several decisions. We are of the opinion that there is no requirement that each and every case law cited by the assessee has to be specifically dealt with in the order of ITAT unless the same is found to be applicable on the facts of the case. We are of the considered opinion that assessee is seeking a review of the order of the ITAT which is not sustainable in law. Upon careful consideration we find that ITAT has duly appreciated the submissions and thereafter passed the order upholding the order's of authorities below. We find that by way of this miscellaneous application the assessee seeks a review of the order of the tribunal in the garb of rectification of mistake apparent from record. It is settled law that a review of the order in the garb of rectification of mistake apparent from record is not permissible in law. Accordingly this miscellaneous application filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act in the order of the tribunal for assessment year 2014-15. Consideration of Transfer Pricing adjustment and compliance with CBDT guidelines. Failure to consider a specific ITAT Bangalore bench decision.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a mistake in the tribunal's order for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue raised by the assessee was regarding the Transfer Pricing adjustment and the compliance with CBDT guidelines. The assessee contended that there were two mistakes apparent from the record in the tribunal's order. The first mistake highlighted was related to the fulfillment of conditions specified in the CBDT guidelines for referring the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The tribunal, in its order, emphasized that there should be a Transfer Pricing adjustment of over 10 crores in an earlier assessment year, which was not deleted in judicial proceedings or pending adjudication. The tribunal found that the assessing officer did not refer the matter for Transfer Pricing adjustment as required by the CBDT guideline, leading to the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

Regarding the second mistake pointed out by the assessee, which was the failure to consider an ITAT Bangalore bench decision, the tribunal clarified that there was no obligation to address every case law cited by the assessee unless it was directly applicable to the case at hand. The tribunal opined that seeking a review of the order under the guise of rectification of a mistake apparent from the record was not permissible in law. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, upholding the original order and emphasizing that a review in the guise of rectification was not legally sustainable.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of Transfer Pricing adjustments, compliance with CBDT guidelines, and the limitations on seeking a review under the guise of rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The tribunal's decision underscores the importance of adhering to established guidelines and legal principles while emphasizing that not every cited case law needs explicit consideration unless directly relevant to the case.