9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- Formation of a conclusion on erroneous application of provisions of law to the facts of the case, etc cannot be held to be a 'mistake apparent from the record' warranting rectification by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 254(2). By reconsidering the application of principles laid down by superior Courts to the facts of the case or by reconsidering its findings recorded, or by reconsidering the application of the relevant provisions of law to the facts of the case, in a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2), the Tribunal would be exercising power of review of its earlier order on merits but not 'rectification of mistake apparent from the record' and such review would certainly be beyond the scope of section 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee in the case on hand after the introduction of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 with effect from 01/04/2011, as they pertained to the prior period to 01/04/2011. Where the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, in respect of service tax came into effect from 01/04/2011. Service tax is payable from the date/time on which the concerned invoice is issued. In the case on hand it is not disputed that the Service Tax to the extent of ₹ 82,02,451/- has been billed in invoices issued by the assessee in the year under consideration i.e, AY 2014-15 and therefore the provision of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 are attracted. As held by the ld CIT (A), since the assessee has collected the said Service Tax and neither included the same in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Bench in its order. 3. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee in support of the issues raised (supra) and the submissions made. We have also heard the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue who opposed the assessee's M.P. and sought its rejection on the grounds that the Tribunal in its impugned order dt.24.8.2017 (supra) had considered the assessee's submission and adjudicated all the grounds raised by the assessee and what the assessee now seeks in its M.P. is a review of the Tribunal order which is not permissible under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that Ground No.6 has been considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that through this M.P. and the contentions put forth therein, the assessee is seeking a review of the earlier order dt.24.8.2017 passed by the Tribunal in the case on hand. 7. Section 254 of the Act reads as follows : (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within [six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed], with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub- section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Mc. Dowell Co. Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 215 after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
