9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 865 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - Mistake apparent in exercise jurisdiction u/s. 254(2) - Tribunal overlooked the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Deepak Extrusions (P.) Ltd. 2017 (3) TMI 1257 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - HELD THAT - The judgment is of no assistance to the assessee. Failure to consider a decision or fact relied upon by a party to the appeal may not amount to a mistake apparent from the record so as to attract the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. Considering and discussing such decision or fact by the Tribunal in its order and arriving at a conclusion based on the same cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the record warranting any rectification by the Tribunal in exercise of its powers u/s. 254(2) - See MC DOWELL AND COMPANY LTD. 2008 (3) TMI 301 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Since we have observed that the judgment relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of Deepak Extrusions (P.) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the assessee s case, the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT is of no assistance to the assessee. The scope of rectification is confined to mistake apparent on the face of the record and not a mistake with regard to debatable questions, where a conscious decision has been taken. Reference may be made to the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Deva Metal Powders (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade of Tax, U.P., 2007 (12) TMI 221 - SUPREME COURT In the present case, a reading of the application itself shows that instead of pointing out a mistake apparent on record, the ld. AR attempts to argue out a case for review or re-writing of the order of the Tribunal. The entire arguments of the ld. AR was not to point out any obvious or patent mistake to be rectified, but to make out a case for re-argument, which cannot be permitted u/s. 254(2) - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of the assessment. 2. Non-disposal of objections by a speaking order. 3. Binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court. 4. Tribunal's adherence to precedents. 5. Mistake apparent from the record under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of the Assessment: The primary issue revolves around the reopening of the assessment. The assessee argued that the assessment order was invalid as the objections to the reasons under Section 148 were not disposed of by a speaking order. The Tribunal had previously remanded the case to the Assessing Officer to dispose of the objections raised against the reopening of the assessment. 2. Non-disposal of Objections by a Speaking Order: The assessee contended that the failure to dispose of the objections by a separate speaking order rendered the assessment order non-est. The Tribunal, however, observed that the Assessing Officer had considered the objections within the assessment order itself, which did not lead to the nullity of the order. The Tribunal's view was that the objections should have been disposed of by a separate speaking order, but this procedural lapse did not invalidate the assessment order. 3. Binding Decision of the Jurisdictional High Court: The assessee relied on the binding decision of the Karnataka High Court in Deepak Extrusions (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, which quashed the order of the AO for not disposing of objections by a separate order. The Tribunal acknowledged this decision but distinguished it from the present case, noting that in Deepak Extrusions, the AO did not dispose of the objections before proceeding with the assessment, whereas, in the present case, the objections were considered within the assessment order. 4. Tribunal's Adherence to Precedents: The Tribunal was criticized by the assessee for not following the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court and a similar decision by the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Sri Lakshmana. The Tribunal clarified that it had considered the judgment in Deepak Extrusions but found it inapplicable to the present case's facts. The Tribunal emphasized that failure to dispose of objections by a separate speaking order does not necessarily nullify the assessment order. 5. Mistake Apparent from the Record under Section 254(2): The assessee argued that the Tribunal's order contained a mistake apparent from the record as it overlooked the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal, however, held that the scope of rectification under Section 254(2) is limited to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and does not extend to debatable questions or re-arguments. The Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent on the record warranting rectification and dismissed the miscellaneous petition. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous petition, holding that there was no mistake apparent on the record in its previous order. The Tribunal maintained that the procedural lapse of not issuing a separate speaking order for objections did not invalidate the assessment order and that the decision in Deepak Extrusions was not directly applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal emphasized the limited scope of rectification under Section 254(2) and rejected the assessee's plea for re-argument.
|
