9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the assessee throughout his submissions does not come under the purview of rectification of mistake apparent from the record. What the ld. Counsel of the assessee is seeking is the review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible under the Act. We place reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. [ 1992 (11) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as referred to and drawn strength from the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [ 1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held 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 ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is a company. Earlier it was partner in the firm Pranik Landmark Associates. It had retired from the firm with effect from 01.04.2009 by way of a retirement deed. During the year under consideration the assessee company received a sum of ₹ 10,48,51,708/- over and above what was due to it from the partnership firm upon retirement as reflected by the assessee company s accounts. The assessee during this year on 06.11.2009 has passed an entry claiming that it was due to the earstwhile partnership firm upon the firm s revaluation of assets in the past which the assessee company had not taken credit in its capital account with the firm. The assessee company had credited this to revaluation reserve during the year. We find that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm or revaluation reserve. Hence, the assessee had relinquished its right into the properties of the partnership firm in lieu of outstanding as on that date of retirement. As it is evident, the said revaluation is claimed to have taken place in the year prior to the year under consideration in 2007-08. The assessee company had not taken credit of that revaluation reserve in its accounts of that period. On query from the bench in this regard, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee company had taken a conscious decision not to account for the revaluation reserve credit. Considered in this perspective when the assessee company had not accounted for the revaluation reserve in the past when it had accrued and consciously ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intimated by the letter filed by the assessee. In this regard, we note that the above matter only requires corrigendum which we are passing here, bringing on record a change of name of the assessee post amalgamation by way of a corrigendum of even date. 5. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that it is an incorrect factual finding by the tribunal that the assessee has received over and above the amounts due to him from the partnership deed. In this regard, he has submitted that the Tribunal has been erroneous in appreciating the paper book submitted in this regard and, hence, it has been requested that the facts of the assessee require due reconsideration. 6. Furthermore, it has been pleaded that the ITAT has wrongly made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the details referred in the ld. CIT(A) s order. That there was complete disregard of the judicial precedence cited by the assessee. That the detailed reasoning of the ld. CIT(A) was not considered. That the ITAT has not considered the letter filed for withdrawal of ground nos. 1 3 by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 8. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) submitted that the assessee is seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible under the Act. 9. Upon carefully consideration, we note that the ITAT has clearly recorded that the order is being passed after carefully hearing the parties and perusing the records. In the order passed, the ITAT has upheld the den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. 11. Thereafter after considering the various facts and decisions, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has expounded as under: In our view, the power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
