9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1052 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - HELD THAT - All the submissions and explanations by the assessee and the department have been summarized and then a finding has been arrived at. The issue has been decided after considering the facts in entirety available on record. In fact full opportunity had been given to the assessee to make submissions. A perusal of the facts in the instant case clearly indicate that the applicant has not pointed out any mistake apparent from the record. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. In the instant case, before the Tribunal, the hearing was concluded on 23.07.2019; the order was passed on 18.10.2019. There is no merit in the contentions of the Ld. counsel that since the appeal was pending till the date of pronouncement of the order, the Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 18.08.2019 would apply. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Admittedly, during the course of hearing before the Bench on 23.07.2019, neither the Ld. counsel nor the Ld. DR made any mention of Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 18.08.2019. As mentioned earlier, it is not a stand-alone Circular; it is to be read in conjunction with CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 also mentions at para 10 that adverse judgments relating to six issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 therein or there is no tax effect, which obviously requires long drawn process of reasoning. In the impugned order, there is no trace of patent, manifest and selfevident error which can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record .What the applicant wants is a review of the order passed by the Tribunal, which is not permissible under the Act. Not a single error in the impugned order has been pointed out by the applicant. What the applicant wants is a review of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is a creature of the statute. The Tribunal cannot review its own decision unless it is permitted to do so by the statute.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 for pending appeals. 2. Rectification of Tribunal's order under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Assessment of additional depreciation claims and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 for Pending Appeals: The applicant argued that Circular No. 17 of 2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to ?50,00,000, should apply retrospectively to pending appeals. The counsel cited the Tribunal's decision in ITO v. Dinesh Madhavlal Patel, which held that this circular should be read in conjunction with Circular No. 3 of 2018 and applied to pending appeals. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was heard on 23.07.2019, and the order was pronounced on 18.10.2019. The Circular No. 17 of 2019 was issued on 08.08.2019, after the hearing but before the pronouncement. The Tribunal clarified that the term "pending" means undecided and that the appeal was not pending after the hearing but before the order's pronouncement. Thus, the Circular No. 17 of 2019 did not apply to the appeal in question. 2. Rectification of Tribunal's Order under Section 254(2): The applicant sought rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 18.10.2019, arguing that the omission to apply Circular No. 17 of 2019 constituted an apparent mistake. The Departmental Representative countered that the Tribunal had no power to review its order under section 254(2). The Tribunal emphasized that rectification under section 254(2) is only permissible for mistakes apparent from the record, which must be obvious and not debatable. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. and T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., to assert that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's request for rectification was essentially a request for a review, which is not permissible under the Act. 3. Assessment of Additional Depreciation Claims and Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The Tribunal reviewed the facts of the case, where the assessee claimed additional depreciation of ?75,80,338.16 for AY 2004-05 due to reclassification of assets. The Assessing Officer (AO) had asked for details, but the assessee failed to provide the necessary documents. Consequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had overlooked key facts, including the assessee's reworking of depreciation claims before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo order, directing the assessee to provide relevant documents regarding the additional depreciation claim. The Tribunal reiterated that the same decision applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2005-06. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) as they lacked merit, emphasizing that no apparent mistake was pointed out by the applicant, and the request was essentially for a review, which is not allowed under section 254(2). Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the MAs, holding that the Circular No. 17 of 2019 did not apply retrospectively to the pending appeal as of the hearing date, and no apparent mistake was present in the original order. The Tribunal emphasized that it has no power to review its decisions under section 254(2) and that the applicant's request was essentially a request for a review, which is not permissible under the Act. The matter of additional depreciation claims and penalty proceedings was remanded to the AO for a de novo order.
|
