9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 14.02.2014 passed in ITA No.595 (Asr)/ 2013, has been dismissed. 2 This appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 07.12.2017 on the following substantial question of law: 'whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the miscellaneous application filed for recalling or rectification of the final order, ITA No.595 (Asr)/2013 dated 14th February, 2014, on a mis reading of the provisions under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.' 3 The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that for the assessment year 2010-11, the Assessing Authority made the best judgment assessment in terms of Section 144 of Act against the appellant o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority under Section 68 of the Act, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority with a direction to decide the same afresh by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant, who had partly succeeded before the Tribunal, instead of challenging the order of the Tribunal by way of further appeal, chose to file an application before the Tribunal itself in terms of Section 254(2) of the Act for recalling the order dated 14.02.2014 passed in ITA No. 595/Asr/2013. The said application was filed, primarily on the ground that the order dated 14.02.2014 was vitiated by mistakes which were apparent from record. The said application was considered by the Tribunal and vide order impugned, the same was rejected. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is, thus, beyond any pale of doubt that this power vested in the Tribunal for rectification of its order is to be exercised only for the purposes of correcting the errors which are apparent from the record. 8 The plea of the appellant before the Tribunal for seeking rectification of its order was that the judgment cited by him before it rendered by the ITAT Amritstar Bench in the case of Mohan Singh Contractor (supra) where the learned Tribunal had held the net profit rate of 5% to be a reasonable rate was not considered by the Tribunal. It is, thus, submitted that the failure to consider a binding precedent on the question of law involved in the matter amounts to an error apparent on the face of record. The Tribunal, after considering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction Company (supra) was nearer to the facts of this case and, thus, applicable, is a matter required to be determined by the Adjudicating Authority. 11 The Tribunal in its wisdom and by taking overall view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case thought it just to follow the judgment rendered in the case of Pooja Construction Company (supra). This judicial discretion exercised by the Tribunal cannot be construed to be an error on the face of record which could be rectified by resorting to Section 254(2) of the Act. The order of the Tribunal impugned in this appeal is well reasoned order and supported by judicial precedents and therefore does not call for any interference by this Court. 12 Placing reliance on the judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
