2015 (4) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 2004-2005 was allowed. 2. The petitioner owns an office premises situated in Neena Co-operative Housing Society at Mumbai. The petitioner used half of its office premises for its own purpose and the other half of the office premises was let out to its sister concern on rent. 3. On 20.07.2006, the petitioner without prejudice filed its Return of Wealth Tax. In its return of wealth tax, the petitioner computed 50% of the office property which was let out to its sister concern on rent, as property chargeable to the wealth tax. This on determining the value of the property on the basis of valuation report at Rs. 52.52 lakhs. Consequently the petitioner paid sel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) of the Act with the Tribunal. The basis of the rectification application was that the office premises would fall under sub-clause 3 of section 2(ea)(i) of the Act and not under sub-clause (5) of section 2 (ea)(i) of the Act, as held by the Tribunal in its order dated 28.05.2008. Further reliance was also placed upon the petitioner having admitted 50% of its property had been let out and had paid the wealth tax thereon. Consequently according to the Revenue, there was a ex-facie mistake which would requires rectification. 9. On 13.08.2010, the Tribunal passed an impugned order allowing the rectification application filed by the Revenue. The basis of allowing the application was that the Tribunal in its order dated 28.05.2008 had not dealt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an error has to be apparent on record and not one where one has to travel beyond record to examine whether there is error or not. 11. As against the above, Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue supports the impugned order. It is further submitted that the question of the applicability of sub-clause (3) or sub-clause (5) of section 2(ea)(i) of the Act was not considered by the Tribunal at the stage of hearing the appeal even though the same was a ground of appeal taken by the Revenue. The issue whether or not sub-clause (3) of section 2 (ea)(i) of the Act applies will be considered at the fresh hearing of the appeal. The error apparent on record is nonconsideration of the above submission. In the circumstances, no interference is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X