2021 (9) TMI 1266 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - HELD THAT - The scope of powers under section 254(2) of the Act is only to correct the mistakes that are apparent on the face of the record. The objections raised by the assessee in this MP cannot be said to be mistakes apparent on the face of the record. The assessee cannot reargue the matter and seek review of the order of the Tribunal. In this case the order was passed by the CIT(A)-11 on 17.7.2018 and admitted position is that that by notification dated 16.07.2018 issued u/ s.120 of the Act by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka Goa the appeals pending before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11 were transferred to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12 Bengaluru. Therefore in the present case the assessee cannot have any grievance whatsoever as the impugned order suffers from an irregularity which is not curable and the Tribunal has therefore adopted the right course by setting aside the impugned order. We do not find any mistake in the order which is apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly this MP is devoid of any merit and is liable to dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of CIT(A) in passing orders after specific directions
- Compliance with CBDT instructions by revenue authorities
- Opportunity of being heard for the assessee
- Applicability of Circular No.20/2003 to DGIT(Investigation)
- Validity of additional grounds raised by the Department
- Scope of powers under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act

Jurisdiction of CIT(A) in Passing Orders After Specific Directions:
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's plea that the CIT(A)-11's actions in passing orders disregarding directions resulted in serious lapses in justice administration. The orders passed between 18.6.2018 and 16.7.2018 were deemed without jurisdiction, leading to setting aside of the orders and remand for fresh decision by the competent CIT(A) with jurisdiction. The Tribunal found the interests of revenue prejudiced by the CIT(A)'s actions, rendering the impugned orders unsustainable.

Compliance with CBDT Instructions by Revenue Authorities:
The Tribunal highlighted the binding nature of CBDT instructions on all income tax officials, emphasizing the responsibility of Chief Commissioners to ensure quality orders by CIT(A). Non-compliance with directions from DGIT(Investigation) in line with CBDT instructions was seen as prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were vitiated due to the CIT(A)'s actions post 18-06-2018, even if pre-dating allegations were not proven.

Opportunity of Being Heard for the Assessee:
The Miscellaneous Petition contended that the assessee was not given a fair hearing by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal refuted this claim, stating that ample opportunities were provided for counsels to present arguments on the admissibility and merits of additional grounds. The Tribunal's detailed timeline of proceedings demonstrated that the assessee had been afforded due opportunity to be heard.

Applicability of Circular No.20/2003 to DGIT(Investigation):
The assessee argued that Circular No.20/2003 was not applicable to DGIT(Investigation) but only to Pr./Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, the Tribunal rejected this contention, aligning with the Revenue's stance that non-compliance with directions from DGIT(Investigation) could prejudice revenue interests. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of adherence to CBDT instructions by all income tax officials.

Validity of Additional Grounds Raised by the Department:
The Department's application for additional grounds challenging the validity of CIT(A)'s orders was deemed admissible by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found sufficient grounds to allow the additional grounds, rejecting the assessee's objection that these issues should have been raised in the memorandum of appeal instead of through additional grounds.

Scope of Powers under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal clarified that the scope of powers under section 254(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent on the face of the record. The assessee's objections and contentions in the Miscellaneous Petition were deemed beyond the purview of seeking a review or re-argument of the appeal. The Tribunal affirmed that it does not have the authority to review its own orders, and the assessee's grievances did not constitute mistakes apparent on the face of the record.

In conclusion, the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding the Tribunal's original order and decision.