9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. The parameters of powers for correction of mistake and for review are separate and distinct. These have to be exercised in accordance with the law. Thus Tribunal committed no error in recording findings that there was no mistake in its order, which could be corrected under Section 254 (2) - against assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 750 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2012 - Sunil Ambwani, And Aditya Nath Mittal, JJ. Petitioner Counsel :- Shubham Agrawal Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C., Income Tax 1. We have heard Shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Shri Ashok Kumar appears for the Income Tax Department. 2. This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to rectify the mistake in para 7 of the order dated 27.8.2010, which is apparent on the face on the record, as has also been noted by the CIT (Appeals), and the facts having been recorded incorrectly, could be rectified by the Tribunal under Section 254 (2) of the Act, as held by this Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. Moolchand Shyamlal? 5. We have gone through the orders of AO, CIT (A) and Tribunal. The appellant -assessee imported surgical/medical equipment detailed in the customs invoice dated 28.3.2011, which according to the petitioner was received in the year ending 31.3.2001. The CIT (A) recorded the findings, as follows:- "7.4. Decision and reasons therefor: I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical/medical machines and there have been substantial addition to machinery even in subsequent years. In view of material on record, AO's disallowance of depreciation is not found correct on facts and the addition is, therefore, deleted." 6. The Tribunal reversed the findings on the perusal of the same documents, as follows:- "7. We have heard rival contentions at some length. The mandatory requirement for allowability of depreciation requires the assessee to use the machinery in her profession during the previous year which ends on 31.3.2001. The Vyapar Kar Check Post's challan and Om Logistics' bill found from the premises of the assessee clearly indicates the date of payment of tax as 4.4.2001 which falls in next assessment year. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the tax was paid on the consignment on 4.4.2001, which falls in the next assessment year. In order to support the application for correction of mistake the appellant did not file the transporter's bill with the Invoice No. 132323, nor filed the Customs Clearance Certificate of the consignment, which according to the appellant, was transported through the bill of the transport company on which it is stated that the tax was paid on 4.4.2001 either in the Tribunal, or even in this appeal. 11. The parameters of powers for correction of mistake and for review are separate and distinct. These have to be exercised in accordance with the law. We do not find that the Tribunal committed any error in recording findings that there was no mistake in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
