9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.) Ltd. [1989 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court] - The decision of the Tribunal has not to be scrutinised sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or whether some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been noticed by the Tribunal in its judgment - If the court finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 305/Hyd/2011, MA No. 157/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2013 - CHANDRA POOJARI AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent which was duly considered by the CIT(A) for arriving at the decision to delete the penalty: "i) The letter dated 26/09/2007 submitted to ward-11(1) on the same date together with the confirmation letter obtained from each and every party, giving full particulars of the extent of land owned by them and the sources and also explaining the reasons for approaching the assessee for the purpose of obtaining the demand drafts. ii) The letter bearing GIR No. V-7044, dated 04/09/2007 together with notice u/s 142 of the IT Act, 1961 issued by the ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. iii) The letter dated 24/12/2007 of the assessee to the Assessing Officer submitting that he had not received any loans attracting the provisions of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee's counsel wants to re-argue the case which amounts review of the order of the Tribunal, for which the Tribunal has no power to review its own order. 8. It is well settled that statutory authority cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There is no express power of review conferred on this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review does not extent to re-hearing of the case on merit. It is held in the case of CIT v. Pearl Woolen Mills (330 ITR 164): "Held, that the Tribunal could not readjudicate the matter under section 254(2). It is well settled that a statutory authority cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There was no express power of review conferr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to be rectified. Power to recall an order is prescribed in terms of Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, and that too only in case where the assessee shows that it had a reasonable cause for being absent at a time when the appeal was taken up and was decided ex parte. Judged in the above background the order passed by the Tribunal is indefensible. 10. The words used in s. 254(2) are 'shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice'. Clearly, if there is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not indicate that the Tribunal can recall the entire order and pass a fresh decision. That would amount to a review of the entire o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake/error or omission, and which an error is a manifest error, then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake. The "rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law and that principle is not obliterated by s. 254(2) of the Act and non-consideration of precedent by the Tribunal causes a prejudice to the assessee. (c) Thirdly, power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. (d) Fourthly, under s. 254(2) an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under the section. (e) Fifthly, failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider an argument ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
