9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the order of the Tribunal dated 12th July, 2012. 2. The learned AR submitted that, in the above appeals, the assessee raised a ground as under: Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) ought to have determined the market value based on records of the Registrar of Assurance. 3. The AR submitted that though the Tribunal heard the parties on this ground, dismissed the ground in para 18 of its order dated 12th July, 2012 holding as under: 18. The assessee raised one more ground that CIT(A) ought have determined the market value based on the records of the Registrar of Assurance. We have gone through the case records. This ground does not emanates from order of the CIT(A), being so, we decline to entertain the same. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nciple of mistake of court not prejudicing a litigant nor by involving doctrine of incidental power, could the Tribunal reverse a decision on the merits. The Tribunal was not justified in recalling its previous finding restoring the addition, more so when an application for the same relief had been earlier dismissed. 8. The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. We shall first deal with the question of the power of the Tribunal to recall an order in its entirety. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under s. 254(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer of review has been given to the Tribunal under the IT Act. Thus, what it could not do directly could not be allowed to be done indirectly. 10. In the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. (2007) 207 CTR (Del) 119; (2007) 293 ITR 163 (Del), their Lordships while considering the powers of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 observed as under: Under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. However, it is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the pre-requisite for exercise of eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong conclusion the Tribunal has not allowed a claim of the party it will not be a ground for moving an application under s. 254(2) of the Act. (g) Lastly, in the garb of an application for rectification under s. 254(2) the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter as the same is beyond the scope of s. 254(2) of the IT Act. 12. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the argument of the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal cannot review its own order and the remedy lies elsewhere. We do not find any mistake apparent on record which warrants rectification of Tribunal's order. Accordingly, the ground raised by the AR is rejected. 13. In the result, all the MAs by different assessees are dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
