9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said that on the basis of the decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of D and H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. v. any mistake which is apparent on the record, has crept in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no error apparent on the record in its order and, in fact, it was a case of review. - We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 30-11-2004 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., PRAKASH KRISHNA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by R.K. Agrawal J.- The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4(2) of the Act, it is empowered to rectify any mistake which is apparent from the record and it has no power to review its own order. Through the present application, the applicant wants the review of its order dated August 30, 1980, which obviously cannot be done. We have heard Sri S.B.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the decision given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of D and H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 142 ITR 528 for disallowing a part of interest incurred on the capital borrowed, a finding has necessarily to be recorded that the part of the capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se relatives of the partners. The corresponding amount of interest has been disallowed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Varanasi, while deciding the appeal preferred by the applicant, has also held that during the year under consideration and even before the business transactions with its debtors were very small and on the basis of these transactions, it could not be held that non-charging of interest from these sister concerns where the partners of the applicant firm or their relation are deeply interested, was for business consideration. The disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer was confirmed. The Tribunal while upholding the order of disallowance of the amount of interest in question, had considered the matter i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal which has been constituted under the Act, cannot exercise any power of review. No such power can be inferred by implication nor is there any specific provision in the Act providing for review. However, if an error falls within the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act then surely the Tribunal can exercise the power conferred under the said Act and rectify its mistake. It is well settled that if the facts of a particular case have been recorded incorrectly or some error has crept in, which does not require any debate and is apparent on the record, such a mistake can be corrected in exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act. Applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid cases to the facts of the present case, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
