9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1538 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - addition was made in the hand of the assessee on protective basis on account of gold seized by the Revenue - CIT(A) deleted the addition as substantive addition has been made in the hands of the sender of the gold Shri Brij Mohan, a Jeweler based in Hyderabad - Against the finding of ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal to the ITAT contending that the gold belongs to him which was allowed by the ITAT in his favour (the assessee) - the Revenue in its MA contended that there cannot be two owners of the same parcel of gold. HELD THAT - Error of judgement cannot be described as a mistake apparent from record. In such a situation, the aggrieved party should approach the higher forum for the redressal of the issue involved in the dispute. ITAT has passed the order after due application of mind. Thus, there cannot be any apparent mistake in the order of ITAT within the meaning of provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. If we reconsider the arguments of the Revenue, the same shall amount to a review of our own order which is not permissible. There is no mistake apparent from the record in the order of ITAT requiring revision u/s 254(2) of the Act. Hence, the MA filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent from the record in the ITAT order regarding ownership of seized gold. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Rectification of Mistake Apparent from the Record The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of an alleged mistake in the ITAT order related to the ownership of seized gold. The dispute arose when the CIT(A) deleted an addition made in the hands of the assessee on a protective basis, as the substantive addition was made in the hands of the sender of the gold. The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in holding the assessee as the owner of the gold, pointing out anomalies in the dates of purchase and dispatch of the gold parcel. The Revenue argued that the ITAT failed to address crucial facts and anomalies, leading to a misinterpretation of ownership. The Revenue cited a judgment by the Jurisdictional High Court emphasizing the duty of the Tribunal to consider all relevant facts and anomalies presented during the proceedings. Issue 2: Consideration of Mistake by ITAT The ITAT, after hearing both parties, analyzed the alleged mistake in the order. The ITAT explained that rectification under section 254(2) of the Act is limited to errors that are apparent from the record, without requiring further debate or evaluation. The ITAT clarified that errors of judgment or differing interpretations of facts or law do not qualify as apparent mistakes. In this case, the ITAT had already considered the Revenue's arguments and facts before passing the order. The ITAT highlighted that revisiting the Revenue's arguments would amount to a review of its own order, which is impermissible. The ITAT distinguished the principles of a cited case where certain judgments were not considered by the Tribunal, unlike in the present case where all contentions were thoroughly addressed in the order. Conclusion After careful consideration, the ITAT dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue, concluding that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the ITAT order. The ITAT emphasized that it had already examined the disputed facts and arguments before issuing the order. The decision was based on the principle that rectification under section 254(2) is limited to errors evident on the face of the record, and not for revisiting judgments based on considered facts and arguments. The ITAT upheld its original decision in favor of the assessee regarding the ownership of the seized gold. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved in the legal judgment and the rationale behind the decision rendered by the ITAT.
|
