2019 (1) TMI 1331 - AT - Income Tax

Mistake apparent on record to be reviewed under section 254(2) - difference of expenditure claimed and bill amount as per the loose papers - Held that - Tribunal found it proper that the freight charges paid to one party in respect of which the impounded material has shown the difference of expenditure claimed and bill amount as per the loose papers, the same difference can be applied in respect of the total freight charges paid to the same party and not to the other parties, hence the issue was again set aside to the AO for proper verification and then decide the same after giving an opportunity to the assessee. These findings of the Tribunal are based on due analysis of the facts as well as the evidence which is not in dispute. Therefore, it is a decision of the Tribunal which is now sought to be reviewed or revised in the present proceedings under section 254(2). Hence the relief sought by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application is beyond the provisions of section 254(2) as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is very limited and circumscribed to rectify the apparent mistake on record and not to review or revise the order passed on merit. Even otherwise, the impugned order challenged by the assessee may be an error of decision but it is not a mistake apparent on record to be reviewed under section 254(2). - Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 29th May, 2018 regarding ground no. 2 and 4 of the revenue's appeal.

Analysis:
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of the mistake in the Tribunal's order. The contention was that the Tribunal reversed the order of the ld. CIT (A) without considering the fact that the AO did not provide any additional material against the assessee regarding the receipt of money out of books on scrap sales or cash received back for freight charges. The ld. D/R opposed the application, stating that the order was passed on merit after analyzing relevant facts and cannot be reviewed under section 254(2) of the IT Act.

The assessee contended that the Tribunal's findings on scrap sales and freight receipts were based on impounded material from a survey. The Tribunal found that the AO extrapolated the incriminating material for all transactions, but the ld. CIT (A) deleted the additions as no additional material was presented. The Tribunal set aside the issues to the AO for proper verification, applying the same rate only to specific transactions based on the impounded material. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of facts and evidence, not disputed by the assessee.

The Tribunal concluded that the relief sought by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application was beyond the provisions of section 254(2) as the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to rectifying apparent mistakes, not reviewing or revising orders on merit. The Tribunal found no merit in the application and dismissed it, stating that the impugned order might be an error of decision but not a mistake apparent on record for review under section 254(2) of the IT Act.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the impounded material, relevant facts, and evidence. The Tribunal set aside the issues to the AO for proper verification, applying the same rate only to specific transactions based on the impounded material. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application as the relief sought was beyond its jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the IT Act.