9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 371 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - assessee seeks to get the order of the Tribunal recalled - Held that - The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on the debatable point of law or undisputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word apparent is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is in capable of argument or debate. Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Tribunal to amend its order passed under section 254(1) to rectify any mistake apparent from the record either suo moto or on an application. The assessee has not been able to point out any apparent mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal and in case application of the assessee is accepted, it would tantamount to review of the order of the Tribunal, as has rightly been pleaded by the DR which is not permissible under law as all the points raised in the appeal has duly been considered and decided while arriving at the conclusion as drawn. See CIT v. Gokul Chand Agarwal 1992 (4) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT & CIT v. I.T.A.T 1993 (3) TMI 25 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT - misc. application filed by the assessee gets dismissed.
Issues:
Recall of tribunal order based on alleged non-consideration of grounds in appeal. Analysis: The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking the recall of the Tribunal's order dated 29.02.2012 for the assessment year 2006-07, contending that certain grounds in the appeal were not appropriately considered, despite the presence of all relevant documents and evidence in the record. The appellant relied on legal precedents such as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 and the Kerala High Court decision in Kerala Chemicals & Proteins Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 235 ITR 467 to support the plea for recalling the order and re-evaluation of the appeal. The Departmental Representative strongly opposed the appellant's request, arguing that all aspects of the matter were duly considered by the tribunal while deciding the appeal. Referring to para. 7 of the order dated 29.2.2012, it was contended that accepting the appellant's application would amount to a review of the order, which is impermissible under the law. The DR emphasized that all points raised in the appeal were adequately considered and decided during the conclusion reached by the tribunal. Upon hearing both parties and examining the material on record, the Tribunal delved into the relevant provisions of law, particularly section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal clarified that the power to rectify a mistake under this section is limited to rectifying a mistake that is apparent from the record, which must be patent, obvious, and not dependent on elaborate arguments or proof for its discovery. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification does not entail a revision or review of the order, and a decision on a debatable point of law or fact does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. In light of legal precedents, including decisions from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal reiterated that the power of rectification under section 254(2) is constrained to rectifying only obvious and patent mistakes that are apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that the scope of rectification is narrow and restricted to correcting mistakes that are clearly visible without the need for extensive arguments or investigation. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's application lacked merit as it did not point out any apparent mistake in the tribunal's order, and accepting the application would effectively amount to reviewing the order, which is beyond the permissible scope of rectification. Based on the foregoing analysis and legal principles, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application, emphasizing that the power to rectify under section 254(2) is limited to correcting glaring and apparent mistakes on the face of the record, and not to re-open or re-argue the entire matter beyond the scope of the section.
|
