9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.M.T.C. Ltd., [ 2000 (8) TMI 63 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein observed that power to rectify the mistake however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. Further, we find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, ITO Vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers [ 1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions . We further find that before Ld.CIT(A), it was assessee s contention that the deduction u/s 80P has been allowed to the assessee in earlier years. Considering the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed order u/s 154 of the Act vide order dt.30.09.2014 wherein he held that assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act and was only entitled to deduction of ₹ 50,000/- u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act and thus according to him there was excess deduction of ₹ 50,74,224/-. He accordingly passed order u/s 154 of the Act wherein he disallowed the claim of deduction of ₹ 50,74,224/- u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 154 of the Act, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.15.03.2017 (in appeal No.ABD/CIT(A)- 2/76/2016-17) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able on record and after hearing the Ld. D.R. 4. The perusal of the grounds reveal that sole grievance of the assessee is its challenge about the rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act wherein the claim of assessee of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been withdrawn which was originally allowed in the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. Before us, Ld. D.R. took us through the order of AO passed u/s 154 of the Act and submitted that assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act and was wrongly allowed by AO in the order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. AO thereafter passed rectification order u/s 154 of the Act wherein he withdrew the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. He submitted that there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of section 154, the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. "Mistake" means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately ; to make an error in interpreting it is an error a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. "Apparent" means visible ; capable of being seen, obvious ; plain. It means "open to view, visible, evident, appears, appearing as real and true, conspicuous, manifest, obvious, seeming." A mistake which can be rectified under section 154 is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the language used in Order 47, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the CPC"), is different from the language used in section 154 of the Act. The power is given to various authorities to rectify any mistake "apparent from record" under section 154 of the Act. In the Civil Procedure Code, the words are "an error apparent on the face of the record". The two provisions do not mean the same thing. The power of the Tribunal in section 154 to rectify "any mistake apparent from the record" is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of "an error apparent on the face of the record" (see T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e passing of rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act will be substituted by the new order with denial of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act. This in our view is not permissible more so in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.M.T.C. Ltd., (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed that power to rectify the mistake however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. 9. Further, we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, ITO Vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 has held that "a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
