9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITAT which needs to be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. It was also submitted that as per the proceedings going on in the court room, at the time of hearing of the appeal, the assessee has formed the opinion that decision has been pronounced in assessee s favour in the open court, whereas it has been decided against the assessee. It was also alleged that agreement dated 15-3-2002 as referred by the CIT (Appeals) was already in the record of the Assessing Officer whereas Hon ble Bench has presumed that the said agreement was not on the record of the TDS Officer. The learned AR also alleged that many decisions were referred to in the paper book placed on the record, but the same were not duly appreciated by the Bench. The decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 pages. Facts in brief are that there was a survey at the assessee s business premises, wherein statement of various employees and partners of the assessee-firm was recorded and on the basis of these statements, the revenue reached to the conclusion that assessee-firm was paying salary and commission to its employee Shri Kanwaljit Singh but not deducting tax at source under section 192 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was found to be in default under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. However, the CIT (Appeals) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer and held that commission paid to Shri Kanwaljit Singh was not part of the salary, therefore, not liable to provisions of the TDS as contained under section 192 of the Act. Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by long-drawn process of reasoning on the points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. While exercising powers under section 254(2), it is not open to go into the merits of the case and to come to a finding different from one already arrived at. An obvious mistake can only be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act, and it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a process of investigation or arguments or proof. The scope of an application filed under section 254(2) is to make an amendment of an order passed under sub-section (1) of that section in order to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, if such mistake is broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court of Delhi which was not argued by the learned AR or DR, amounts to a mistake apparent from the record, is also devoid of any merit. While deciding an issue, the ITAT has all powers to refer and apply the ratios laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and Hon ble jurisdictional High Court to support its conclusion and no fault can be found in the order of the ITAT for relying on the ratios laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court. 6. With respect to the decision cited by the learned AR in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. ( supra ) wherein it was held that failure to consider a decision of co-ordinate Bench, cited by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
