ITO 4(4), AGRA V. USHA AGARWAL, AGRA

MA 38/AGR/2018

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application by the Revenue seeking to rectify an alleged error in the capital gains figure stated in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra. The Revenue requested a correction from Rs. 14,40,000 to Rs. 17,40,000, claiming the original figure was a mistake. The Tribunal, after reviewing the application and the relevant legal provisions, concluded that it could not amend its previous order to correct errors made by the Assessing Officer during the assessment, as this was not within the legislative intent of Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal referenced decisions from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court to support its position that its powers under Section 254(2) are limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from its own records and do not extend to reviewing or correcting errors made by lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360518 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) V M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE; SHAILENDRA SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANURAG SINHA
• Keywords: Capital Gains

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 38/Agr/2018 (in ITA No.167/Agr/2018) Assessment year : 2007-08 Income-tax Officer, 4(4), Agra. Vs. Smt. Usha Agrawal, 95, Kaveri Kunj, Phase-II, Kamla Nagar, Agra. PAN : ABTPA2565N (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: This miscellaneous application has been moved on behalf of Revenue u/s. 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to rectify the error committed by the Assessing Officer and to substitute the figure of Rs. 17,40,000/- against the figure of Rs.14,40,000/- shown as capital gains in the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer. Accordingly prayed to recall the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 167/Agr/2018. 2. Perused the records. Heard learned departmental representative for applicant/Revenue and learned representative for assessee. Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR. Date of hearing 04.04.2025 Date of pronouncement 19.05.2025 MA No. 38/Agr/2018 2 | P a g e 3. It appears from the perusal of records that an order dated 19.06.2018 was passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 167/Agr/2018, Smt. Usha Agrawal vs. ITO- 4(4), Agra, wherein the Tribunal allowed assessee’s appeal. The Tribunal has passed the impugned order consisting 24 pages very elaborately and has appreciated the facts in detail. Wrong mentioning of the figures by the Assessing Officer in his own order is not the subject matter of the spirit of section 254(2) of the IT Act. Legislature never intended that the Tribunal be indulged in rectifying the mistakes committed by the Assessing Authorities during the assessment proceedings. 4. The scope of section 254(2) of the Act has been examined by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, vide order dated 06.11.1992 passed in Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) V M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited, reported in [1993] 203 ITR, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “ Under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal may, \"with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record\", amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) within the time prescribed therein. It is an accepted position that the Appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the pro visions of the Act. The only power which the Tribunal possesses is to rectify any mistake in its own order which is apparent from the record. This is merely a power of amending its order. The power of rectification under section 254(2) 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 conceivably be two opinions. Failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. The Tribunal cannot, in the exercise of its power of rectification, look into MA No. 38/Agr/2018 3 | P a g e some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion” 5. Hon’ble Supreme court, vide order dated 03.12.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7110 of 2021, Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) V M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited, vide para 3.2 and 6 has held as under: “3.2 Having gone through both the orders passed by the ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. While allowing the application under Section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013, it appears that the ITAT has re-heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record only. Therefore, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. While considering the application under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may. pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case.” MA No. 38/Agr/2018 4 | P a g e 6. In view of aforesaid legal position, this Revenue’s miscellaneous application is, thus, not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 19.05.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra "