9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rectification Application also does not state that the above issue was urged at the hearing. Therefore, the decision was taken by the Tribunal in its order dated 28.05.2008 on the basis of the submissions made before it on merits. This application as allowed by impugned order is in fact review the order dated 28.01.2008. Moreover the impugned order has while allowing the application held whether the office premises is in a commercial building or not would have to be determined by the sanction granted by the local authority. - Tribunal could not have exercised jurisdiction to rectify the order dated 28.05.2008, as it seeks to refer, and rely upon the sanction granted by the local authority, which was clearly not a part of the record. - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 50% of the office property on the basis of the interest capitalization method. As a result, the value of the property for wealth tax purpose was enhanced from ₹ 52.52 lakhs to ₹ 2.50 crores a demand was accordingly raised. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred an appeal to the CIT (Appeals). By an order dated 26.09.2007, the CIT (Appeals) allowed the petitioner's appeal holding that as the petitioners premises were being used for commercial purposes, they are exempted from the wealth tax by virtue of sub-clause (5) of section 2 (ea)(i) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2007 of the CIT (Appeals), the Revenue challenged the order in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. This according to the impugned order would depend on the fact whether the building in which the office premises is situated is in a building which is commercial or not, which again would depend upon the sanction granted by the local authority. Thus the impugned order recalled the order of the Tribunal dated 28.05.2008. 10. In support of the petitioner's submission, Mr.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is completely without jurisdiction, as the entire issue of the applicability of sub-clause (3) or sub-clause (5) of section 2(ea)(i) of the Act in the facts of the present case is a debatable issue. This is particularly so as on identical facts, the Gujarat Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law that the power of the Tribunal to rectify mistakes is only to correct an error apparent on record and not to correct an error which is to be established by a long drawn out process of reasoning or where there could be two possible views. Although one of the grounds in the appeal before the Tribunal did relate to application of sub-clause (3) of section 2(ea)(i) of the Act, the same was not urged before the Tribunal during the hearing. This is evident from the fact that the Rectification Application also does not state that the above issue was urged at the hearing. Therefore, the decision was taken by the Tribunal in its order dated 28.05.2008 on the basis of the submissions made before it on merits. This application as allowed by impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
