2017 (3) TMI 528

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order which has been passed by the Tribunal reaches finality the moment the same is passed: it cannot be touched thereafter. By section 254(2) of the act, the Tribunal, however, has been authorized to rectify mistakes in its orders, which are apparent on the face of the records. The expression “mistake apparent on the record” means a mistake either clerical or grammatical or arithmetical or of like nature, which can be detected without there being any necessity to reargue the matter or to reappraise the facts as appearing from the records.” Thus it is clear that section 254(2) cannot be applied to seek review of the ITAT order. Once it is pronounced, it becomes final and can rectify only the mistakes apparent on the record. - Decided a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1 of its order attempted to interpret the narrow compass of the definition of property under explanation to section 56(2)(vii) pro-tanto being aligned with definition of capital assets u/s 2(14) and held that in the absence of specific clause stating that Machinery being included as part of the definition, the transfer of machinery to the assessee by the individual is to be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The conclusion arrived at aforesaid is based on misunderstanding the purport of the arguments placed for canvassing the case of the appellant, without understanding the larger picture in the grounds of appeal canvassed vide ground No.3, that the transfer between assessee and the Individual are per-se exempt by virtue of the defin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... clause (ii) to explanation (e) thereunder which states that the member of a HUF is a relative to whom, gifts made are exempt. 7. In view of the above, there is a patent mistake in the order of the Hon'ble IT AT with regard to sustaining the addition on account of transfer of machinery to the appellant by the Individual, since the applicability of section 56 (2) (vii) in itself is an error by virtue of the nature of transfer inter-se between related persons. 8. The Hon'ble ITAT may kindly recall its order in ITA No.839/Hyd/2015 to be argue de-novo on the issues raised in the appeal but not considered in proper perspective by the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. Referring to the above factual background, the ld. AR requested the Bench to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X