9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 41 - HC - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - HELD THAT - We find that the order dated 9 July 2018 2018 (8) TMI 744 - ITAT MUMBAI had dealt with the Petitioner s contentions extensively while upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The view taken by the Tribunal in its order dated 9 July 2018 in both the Assessment Years was on the basis of the record available before it and its understanding/appreciation of the evidence on record for the two Assessment Years. This is not a case of an error apparent on record which would warrant interference. In case the parties are aggrieved by order dated 9 July 2018, it is open to the parties to file an appeal under the Act. The allowing of such an application for rectification by the Tribunal would amount to review of the order dated 9 July 2018. This is impermissible as the Tribunal is not bestowed with powers to review its order.
Issues:
Challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting rectification applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Analysis: The Petitioner challenged a common order dated 29 March 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal rejected the Petitioner's application for rectification of an order dated 9 July 2018 relating to Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Tribunal upheld the view that the Assessing Officer had not recorded dissatisfaction with the suo motu disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act before invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT that without the Assessing Officer recording that the suo motu disallowance is incorrect, Rule 8D cannot be applied. The Petitioner filed rectification applications on 22 January 2019, arguing that the Assessing Officer had recorded dissatisfaction with the suo motu disallowance under Section 14A of the Act with Rule 8D of the Rules. However, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application on 29 March 2019, stating that the Assessing Officer had not recorded dissatisfaction with the disallowance, and thus Rule 8D could not be invoked. The Tribunal found no error apparent on record warranting rectification for both Assessment Years. The Counsel for the Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer had indeed recorded dissatisfaction with the disallowance before invoking Rule 8D. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's order of 9 July 2018 extensively dealt with the contentions and evidence, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order. The High Court noted that rectification would amount to a review of the order, which is impermissible as the Tribunal lacks the power to review its decision. Therefore, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order of 29 March 2019 for the two Assessment Years. The High Court dismissed both Petitions, stating that the parties could raise the issue in an appeal or seek to file an appeal from the order dated 9 July 2018. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal cannot review its own order and that parties have the option to appeal under the Act.
|
