9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 869 - ITAT NAGPURRectification u/s 254 - Determination of Compensation under BTALA Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act - HELD THAT - The applicant assessee is trying to conduct a review of the order already passed without pointing out any mistake apparent from the order. The Tribunal had evaluated the facts and circumstances of the case when it originally dismissed the appeal of the assessee whether the Tribunal was on merits or otherwise while dismissing the appeal is not a matter which calls for determination in these proceedings. If the assessee is aggrieved by the merits of the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal, it is at liberty to pursue its remedy in accordance with law. The observations made by us in this order are, therefore, findings to our decision on the exercise of jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Act of the Tribunal. The case law relied upon in CIT v/s D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur Pvt. Ltd, 2005 (1) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT which laid down that the tenancy right is a capital asset and its surrender would attract section 45 and the gains would be assessable under the head Capital Gains . In our humble understanding the same is unconnected to the present case. It is surprising to note that even after a passage of ten years, no attempt was taken to knock the doors of the High Court on substantial question of law, if any, as pleaded by the assessee. The assessee has taken numerous adjournments on some pretext or otherwise. The conduct is a clear pointer to the hollowness of the contention of the applicant assessee who is perhaps trying his luck. In the course of proceedings, the learned Counsel for the assessee even hinted that he is in the process of filing additional evidences to buttress his claim and requested our leave to this aspect. We have anxiously gone through the ITAT Rules, 1963, and found that there is no procedure so prescribed. Accordingly, his request was out rightly rejected. It seems that the prime objective of the assessee to reargue the matter all over again and to rehear the averments already made once again. It is pertinent to note that the learned Counsel for the assessee has failed to point out any manifest error in the order. In fact, even before us, he has hipped upon the same submissions earlier canvassed at all levels which were unfavourable to him. We hold that the instant M.A. filed by the applicant assessee is not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Recall of the impugned order. 2. Classification of compensation as income from other sources or capital gains. 3. Mistake apparent from the record. Summary: Recall of the Impugned Order: The applicant assessee sought the recall of the order dated 03/02/2014, passed by the Tribunal in ITA no.209/Nag./2013 for the assessment year 2009-10, claiming there were mistakes of law that needed rectification u/s 254(2) of the IT Act. Classification of Compensation: The Tribunal originally held that the compensation of Rs. 87,50,000/- received by the assessee was income from other sources assessable in the A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee contended that this amount should be treated as capital gains, citing decisions such as Singhai Rakesh Kumar V/s Union of India 247 ITR 150 (SC) and CIT V/s D.P. Sandu Brothers Chembur Pvt. Ltd. 273 ITR 257 (SC), which state that gains from the transfer of agricultural land are assessable under capital gains and not under other sources. Mistake Apparent from the Record: The Tribunal found that the assessee was attempting to review the order without pointing out any mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that if the assessee was aggrieved by the merits of the Tribunal's decision, it should pursue its remedy in accordance with the law. The Tribunal referenced several judgments to support its decision, including CIT v/s Earnest Exports Ltd., [2010] 8 taxmann.com 302 (Bom.), and CIT v/s Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [1992] 60 Taxman 507 (Ori.). The Tribunal concluded that the case law cited by the assessee, such as CIT v/s D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur Pvt. Ltd., was unconnected to the present case. The Tribunal noted that no attempt was made to appeal to the High Court on a substantial question of law, and the assessee's conduct suggested an attempt to reargue the matter. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's request to file additional evidence, as there was no prescribed procedure for this under the ITAT Rules, 1963. The Tribunal reiterated the scope and power of rectification as outlined in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v/s CIT, [2007] 295 ITR 466, emphasizing that rectification is to ensure no party suffers due to a Tribunal's mistake. However, the Tribunal found no manifest error in the order and dismissed the M.A. filed by the assessee as not maintainable. Conclusion: The Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicant assessee was dismissed, with the Tribunal holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record that warranted rectification u/s 254(2) of the IT Act. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 17/05/2024.
|
