9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll mere pride of opinion and follow the truth wherever it may lead; and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors. See Distributors (Baroda) Private Limited Versus Union of India And Others [1985 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ] We are, therefore, unable to accept Revenue’s contention that a considered opinion expressed by the Tribunal, after applying its mind to an issue in appeal, cannot be unsettled even if the mistake in the process of reasoning is a simple mistake apparent from record on which no two views are possible. Thus we recall both the orders passed by this Tribunal for fresh hearing in terms of the directions set out above - M.A. Nos.99 & 100/Asr/2014 (In I.T.A. Nos.131/Asr/2012 & 502/Asr/2011 respectively) - - - Dated:- 31-8-2015 - Pramod Kumar and A.D. Jain, JJ. For The Appellant Sandeep Vijh For The Respondent Tarsem Lal Per Pramod Kumar : 1. By way of these two rectification petitions, the assessee applicant seeks recall of orders dated 29th April, 2014 on the ground, inter alia, (i) that the core arguments advanced by the assessee have been simply brushed aside, without adjudicating upon the same, and (ii) that the binding judicial precedent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The basic principle is thus clear. A mistake apparent from record means an obvious or patent mistake or a glaring and obvious mistake . Hotly debatable issues are excluded; hardly debatable issues are included. The issue may be complicated, yet the mistake may be simple. It is a mistake apparent from record. The test is not complexity of the issue but simplicity of the mistake. The question whether dividend income can be taxed as income under the head Income from business , in our considered view, is hardly debatable. 9. The next issue raised before us is whether a considered view of the Tribunal can be subjected to rectification of mistake. It is Revenue s contention that the mistake, even if there be any, is a conscious one inasmuch as the Tribunal duly considered all aspects of the matter and then came to a particular conclusion. Whatever be the merits of such a conclusion, the conclusions so arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be unsettled as it would amount to reviewing the order of the Tribunal. We are not persuaded by this line of reasoning. Undoubtedly, all mistakes cannot be rectified under s. 254(2). The rectifiable mistakes are the mistakes which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349 (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC), had observed thus To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce vs. Delameter a Judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible, and, therefore, ever ready to learn; great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow the truth wherever it may lead; and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors. We are, therefore, unable to accept Revenue s contention that a considered opinion expressed by the Tribunal, after applying its mind to an issue in appeal, cannot be unsettled even if the mistake in the process of reasoning is a simple mistake apparent from record on which no two views are possible . (Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us) 10. Everything, thus, hinges on whether the process of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, in relying upon the IRDA guidelines which find no mention in the Income Tax Act, and in holding that only pure life insurance policies are covered by Section 10(10D), was a mistake apparent on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71, that ........... in a taxing Act one has to look at merely what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. Once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of law, he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. Even in the case of CIT vs. National Taj Traders (supra), relied upon by the assessee, Their Lordships of Hon ble Supreme Court have referred to, with approval, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes observation that A case not provided for in a statute is not to be dealt with merely because there seems no good reason why it should have been omitted, and that the omission appears in consequence to have been unintentional . Their Lordships then observed that In other words, under the first principle, a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except when reason for it is found to be in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defined in section 10(10D) and reads as under: Keyman Insurance Policy means a life insurance policy taken by a person on the life of another person who is, or was, the employee of the first mentioned person or was connected, in any manner whatsoever, with the business of the first mentioned person It is clear from the definition that keyman insurance policy is on the life of another person. In other words, the payments under policy becomes due on the death of the concerned person. No further tests have been prescribed and nothing more can be read into or inferred except being an employee or ex -employee or in connection with business. (Page 1 of written submission) Before proceeding further, it is submitted that the IRDA was established with certain objectives and these have been mentioned by the CIT(A) himself in para 2.9.1. It is very clear that the scope of IRDA is confined to regulate, promote and ensure orderly growth of insurance business . The IRDA has no relevance so far as allowability or premium under Income Tax Act or taxation of policy proceeds is concerned. Where another Act is to be considered for the purpose of interpretation, it is provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
