9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parent from the record' before the Tribunal. The different view taken by the very same Tribunal in another case, on a later date, could be relied on by either of the parties while challenging the earlier decision or the subsequent decision in an appeal or revisional forum, but the same is not a ground for rectification of the order passed by the Tribunal. It could at the most be a change in opinion based upon the facts in the subsequent case. The subsequent wisdom may render the earlier decision incorrect, but not so as to render the subsequent decision as a mistake apparent from the record calling for rectification under Section 254 of the Act. Ramlal Chiranjilal's case, in fact was interfered with or reversed by High Court or Supreme Court, and the Tribunal in ignorance of a judgment of Superior Court, still directed Assessing Officer to follow Ramlal Chiranjilal's case. Then the mistakes noted above could facilitate correction under Section 254 of the Act. On the other hand, as in this case, the Tribunal without a changed circumstance surrounding Ramlal Chiranjilal's case entertained a rectification petition. This approach is more counter-productive and contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1963. (for short 'the Act'). Adjudication relates to the assessment year 1982-83. 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a mistake in the appellate order which required rectification on the ground that there was disparity on a point between the impugned order and another order of the Appellate Tribunal? 2) Whether there were materials for the Appellate Tribunal to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals) and re-determine the quantum of penalty? 3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer not to follow the decision of the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramlal Chiranjilal vs. ITO which held that the quantum of penalty is to be computed in relation to the total income as finally determined? 2. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 1982-83 only on 14.8.1986. Due to the delay in filing the return, the assessing officer, after rejecting the explanation offered by the assessee, imposed ₹ 4,78,768/- as a penalty under Section 271(1) (a) of the Act. On appeal, it was held that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew. Merely because there is a wrong or erroneous order or a wrong appreciation of facts, the same are not grounds for rectification, though the same may be grounds for appeal. An error which has to be established by a process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error or mistake on the face of record as held by the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (AIR 1960 SC 137). 9. It has been held that the word mistake is an ordinary term but in taxation law, it has special significance or contextual connotation. 'Mistake' means to understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting; it is an error; a fault. 'Apparent' means visible; capable of being seen; easily seen, plain. A mistake which can be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration as held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Others [(1992) 196 ITR 590 (Orissa)]. The Bombay High Court had held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ramesh Electric and Tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r shows that the Tribunal allowed the rectification on the ground that there is a contradiction in the orders of the Tribunal in respect of the case of the assessee as well as that of the sister concern in which judgments were rendered two days apart and that such a contradiction ought to be removed, so as to have clarity in the decisions. It further went on to hold that since the assessee had not filed any petition to rectify the order in respect of the sister concern, the petition for rectification filed by the department is liable to be allowed. We are afraid. We cannot agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal. 14. We are of the view that the reasoning of the Tribunal is erroneous. A decision taken subsequently in another case is not part of the record of the case. A subsequent decision, subsequent change of law, and/or subsequent wisdom dawned upon the Tribunal, are not matters that will come within the scope of 'mistake apparent from the record' before the Tribunal. The different view taken by the very same Tribunal in another case, on a later date, could be relied on by either of the parties while challenging the earlier decision or the subsequent decision in an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for failure to furnish returns or failure to furnish returns within the time allowed or failure to comply with the notice or for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the instant case, the penalty is leviable on account of failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the return without reasonable cause within the time allowed in the manner required under Section 139(1) of the Act. The explanation to Section 271(1) does not apply to the circumstances in the present case. Penalty is levied in the instant case under Section 271(1)(i)(a) of the Act (as it then stood), while the explanation applies to the cases covered by Section 271(1)(i)(b) of the Act (as it then stood). Viewed in the above light also, we are of the view that the rectification petition could not have been allowed by the Tribunal. 19. Since we are of the view that the first question referred for consideration is answered in favour of the assessee, the remaining questions do not arise for consideration. The first question is answered in favour of the assessee and on the view we have taken, the other two questions do not survive and, hence we decline to answer the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
