9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Review of the order will tantamount to rehearing of the appeal which power is not vested with the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the submissions of both the parties has passed the order discussing the provisions of the law. In our opinion, there is no mistake much less apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal. In the instant case the Tribunal has already given precise findings on law and facts as per all the materials / documents / evidences placed before it. Such finality of order cannot be disturbed u/s 254(2) of the Act petition in absence of any mistake apparent from record. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric Trading Company [ 1992 (11) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record itself and not rectification in error of judgment - Misc. application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - M.A. No. 97/PUN/2021 (Arising out of ITA No. 1672/PUN/2017) - - - Dated:- 21-6-2022 - Shri Inturi Rama Rao, AM And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Applicant : Shri M.G. Jasnani. For the Respondent : Shri Krishn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d taxable streams of income. Similar to his action for the preceding year, the ld. CIT(A) not only sustained the disallowance as made by the AO but also enhanced the disallowance u/s 14A by such an amount of Rs.13,297/-. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation as well as enhancement of the addition. 8. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, we find that this issue is similar to that of A.Y. 2010-11 which has been determined hereinabove. It is observed that out of the expenses claimed to have been incurred by the assessee exclusively for taxable income, there is an item of common expense, which is Professional fee of Rs.58,521/-. Following our above decision for earlier year, we direct to delete the enhancement of disallowance made by the ld. CIT(A). At the same time, the disallowance is restricted to common expenses incurred by the assessee at Rs.71,818 (namely Rs.13,297 + Rs.58,521). This issue is partly decided in favour of the assessee. 9. The only other issue which survives in the instant appeal is against the computation of interest u/s.234A and 234B of the Act. The fact apropos this issue are that the assessee admittedl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar No.2/2015, dated 10-02-2015 providing that no interest u/s.234A of the Act is chargeable on the amount of self-assessment tax paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of return of income . It is this circular which has been followed by the ld. CIT(A) in restoring the matter to the AO for making a fresh calculation of disallowance of interest u/s.234A. 11. The case of the assessee is that though the impugned order provides for exclusion of self assessment tax paid before the due date of the return of income, but there is no such direction for reducing the amount of self assessment tax paid by the assessee after the due date but before the actual filing of return. It is the case of the assessee that similar direction ought to have been given for such later interest payment as well. We find force in the argument of the ld. AR. It is a settled legal position that payment of interest u/s.234A is a compensation to the Revenue for deprivation of the amount of tax due, for the period it is not paid. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Pranoy Roy (supra) dealt with a situation in which the amount of self-assessment tax was paid before the due date u/s. 139(1). There was no amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal to review its own order, which in our considered opinion, the Tribunal does not have any power u/s 254(2) of the Act to review its order. The power vested with the Tribunal relates to the mistake apparent from record only. The Tribunal after considering the grounds raised in the appeal decided the appeal and passed the order. If the Revenue has any grievance against the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue can go before the Hon ble High Court by filing appeal u/s 260A of the Act. The Tribunal cannot review its own order in the garb of power vested u/s 254(2) of the Act. Review of the order will tantamount to rehearing of the appeal which power is not vested with the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the submissions of both the parties has passed the order discussing the provisions of the law. In our opinion, there is no mistake much less apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal. 8. That there are series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court expounding scope of exercising powers under section 254(2) of the Act. We do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y cannot be disturbed. We have already examined that there is no apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal and Revenue is just trying to seek a review of the order in the garb of this Misc. application which is not permitted within the legal framework so far as Tribunal is concerned. In the instant case the Tribunal has already given precise findings on law and facts as per all the materials / documents / evidences placed before it. Such finality of order cannot be disturbed u/s 254(2) of the Act petition in absence of any mistake apparent from record. 10. We further find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric Trading Company reported as 203 ITR 497 has held that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record itself and not rectification in error of judgment. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under: The Tribunal cannot, in exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
