2020 (11) TMI 408 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - disallowance of assessee s claim of deduction under Section 54(1) - whether there is mistake apparent on the face of record - decision of the Tribunal is not to the liking of the assessee - HELD THAT - From the submissions of the ld. AR as well as the contents of the Miscellaneous Application, prima facie, it appears that the assessee is not satisfied with the reasoning of the Tribunal. Assessee wanted the order to be passed in a particular manner. Since, the order was not passed according to his expectation, therefore, he has come up with the plea that the appeal order suffers from mistake apparent on the face of record. If the assessee is not agreeable to the reasoning of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal, he has a proper remedy of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court under Section 260A of the Act. However, that cannot be a reason to seek redressal under Section 254(2) of the Act, which is clearly envisaged for rectifying mistake apparent on the face of record. The so-called mistake pointed out by the assessee certainly cannot be said to be mistake apparent on face of record as envisaged under Section 254(2). By filing the present application, the assessee, in our view, is trying to challenge the reasoning of Tribunal in the appeal order in the guise of rectification. It is not acceptable. Only because the decision of the Tribunal is not to the liking of the assessee, he cannot seek review of the appeal order by taking recourse to Section 254(2) of the Act. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act regarding deduction claim under Section 54(1) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectifiable Mistake under Section 254(2) of the Act:
The dispute arose from the disallowance of the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 54(1) of the Act due to failure to invest in a new property within the specified timeframe. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The Tribunal, considering relevant provisions and judicial precedents, held that the actual date of filing the return is crucial for determining eligibility for the deduction. The Tribunal concluded that as the assessee did not invest before the filing date, the claim was not allowable under Section 54(1) of the Act.

2. Application for Rectification:
The assessee sought rectification of the Tribunal's order citing reasons such as non-conformity with other decisions, misinterpretation of judicial precedents, and non-consideration of an alternate contention regarding a Memorandum of Understanding for property purchase. The Tribunal, after thorough consideration of submissions, statutory provisions, and precedents, found the assessee's dissatisfaction with the decision as the basis for the rectification request. The Tribunal emphasized that seeking rectification under Section 254(2) is for correcting apparent mistakes, not challenging the decision based on dissatisfaction.

3. Dismissal of the Application:
The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating it lacked substance or merit. The Tribunal highlighted that disagreement with the decision does not qualify as a mistake apparent on the face of the record under Section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that seeking a review of the order due to dissatisfaction is not the purpose of Section 254(2) and advised the assessee to pursue appeal remedies if not satisfied with the decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the original decision and dismissed the application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarifies the distinction between seeking rectification for apparent mistakes and challenging decisions based on dissatisfaction. The application was dismissed as the grounds for rectification did not align with the criteria under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.