9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider all the materials and submissions presented by the assessee. 2. Alleged violation of natural justice by the Tribunal. 3. Scope and limitations of the Tribunal's power under Section 269G(5) and Section 254(2) of the IT Act. 4. Definition and scope of "mistake apparent from the record." 5. Typographical errors in the Tribunal's order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Consideration of Materials and Submissions: The assessee contended that the Tribunal did not consider the entire material submitted, including paper books, written submissions, and affidavits. Specific documents and arguments were allegedly overlooked, leading to a lack of analytical discussion and findings. The Tribunal acknowledged the submission of bulky materials but emphasized that it is not feasible to reproduce every argument or document in its order. The Tribunal concluded that oversight of a fact does not constitute an apparent mistake. 2. Violation of Natural Justice: The assessee argued that the Tribunal violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a chart of events before its decision. The Tribunal, however, clarified that the chart was discussed during the hearing and was merely a chronological detail of events. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the allegation of a violation of natural justice. 3. Scope and Limitations of Tribunal's Power: The Tribunal highlighted its limited power under Section 254(2) and Section 269G(5), stating it cannot review its own order but can rectify palpable mistakes. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal reiterated that its inherent power is to correct errors apparent from the record, not to review or reassess the case. 4. Definition and Scope of "Mistake Apparent from the Record": The Tribunal discussed the legal interpretation of "mistake apparent from the record," emphasizing that it includes errors discernible after a judicious probe into the record. The Tribunal referenced multiple cases to illustrate that not every oversight or omission qualifies as an apparent mistake. The Tribunal concluded that the alleged mistakes did not meet this criterion. 5. Typographical Errors: The Tribunal identified and corrected two typographical errors in its previous order: - In para 3, line 3, the word "assessed" was substituted with "based." - In para 5, line 2, the word "late" before "Shri Gaj Singhji" was deleted. Conclusion: The Tribunal partially allowed the miscellaneous application by correcting the typographical errors but found no apparent mistake in the substantive content of its previous order. The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot substitute its earlier order under the guise of rectification, adhering to its jurisdictional limits.
|
