9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 138 - AT - Income TaxRecall of order Rectification of mistake apparent from record Restriction of addition u/s 69C of the Act Held that - The working of the addition was confirmed by both the parties before the Tribunal - Revenue could not point out any apparent mistake of the Tribunal which needs correction Relying upon Perfetti Van Melle India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 2007 (5) TMI 214 - DELHI High Court - a mistake capable of rectification u/s 254(2) is one which is patent, obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument- a mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof cannot be rectified u/s. 254(2) - the Tribunal have no power to review the order - the Revenue has failed to point out any mistake apparent from record Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Request for recalling of the order dated 05-10-2012 passed by ITAT Ahmedabad Bench-C in ITA.No.2863/Ahd/2009 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. Analysis: The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking the recalling of the order dated 05-10-2012 passed by ITAT Ahmedabad Bench-C. The Revenue contended that the addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act was wrongly restricted to Rs.31,46,500 instead of the original addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,32,56,366. The Revenue argued that the ITAT had incorrectly allowed a reduction of Rs.24,39,000 from the amount paid for unaccounted expenditure, which should have been taxed as the source was unexplained. The Revenue claimed that the ITAT's decision was perverse as it did not appreciate the facts of the transactions. The Revenue sought the recall and rectification of the mistake. During the hearing, the learned DR reiterated the Revenue's submissions in the application, emphasizing that the figures in the chart considered by the Tribunal were incorrect, leading to an incorrect grant of relief. However, the learned A.R. objected to the Revenue's contentions, stating that both parties had independently verified and agreed upon the figures at the time of the appeal hearing. The A.R. argued that since the figures were accepted by the Revenue during the hearing, there was no mistake in the Tribunal's order. Upon careful consideration of the submissions and perusal of the record, the Tribunal noted that both parties had confirmed the working of the addition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that there was no apparent mistake requiring correction and emphasized that a mistake rectifiable under section 254(2) should be patent and obvious, not dependent on argument. The Tribunal cited precedents to support its position that a mistake rectifiable under section 254(2) cannot allow the reopening and rearguing of the entire matter. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application, stating that the Tribunal lacked the power to review its order. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application as the Revenue failed to identify any mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal relied on legal precedent to support its decision, emphasizing that the application for rectification cannot be used to reopen and reargue the entire matter beyond the section's scope. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the settled law that it does not have the authority to review its order. This judgment highlights the importance of confirming figures and submissions during the appeal process, the limitations on rectification under section 254(2), and the restrictions on reopening matters beyond the scope of rectification applications.
|
