9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as 100% of such expenses is not warranted within the scope of power as envisaged u/s.254(2) of the Act wherein only mistake apparent from record could be rectified. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application filed by Revenue is dismissed. - M.A. No. 34/PUN/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 790/PUN/2016) - - - Dated:- 5-2-2021 - Shri R.S. Syal, VP And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : Shri S.N. Puranik For the Revenue : Shri Vitthal Bhosale ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue arising out of ITA No.790/PUN/2016 for assessment year 2011-12 u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act‟) seeking rectifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erits. 3. The Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had restricted the disallowance on expenses to the extent of 20% of the total expenses instead of 100% and what the Revenue wants is that disallowance on expenses which was confirmed to the extent of 20%, it should be made 100%. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the enhanced amounts in respect of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. The Ld. AR of the assessee strongly opposed to the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue and submitted that the order of the Tribunal dated 03.01.2019 is well reasoned and the same does not call for any review or rectification. The Ld. AR of the assessee furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. For fortifying this view, we make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ld., 262 ITR 146 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 305 ITR 227. 7. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
