Sanskruti Yuva Pratishthan Trust, Thane (West) V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune

MA 08/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1153 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN DEDHIA
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 264; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JM M.A. NO. 08 /PUN/ 2021 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 264 /PUN/ 2020 ) SANSKRUTI YUVA PRATISHTHAN TRUST, C/O. PRATAP BABURAO SARNAIK, 202/203, SECOND FLOOR, SUNDERVAN PARK, SAMATA NAGAR - 400 6 06. PAN : AAITS5369J .. /APPLICANT / V/S. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE. / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHAN DEDHIA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P WALIMBE / DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 . 0 3 .202 1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 . 03 .2021 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.264/PUN/2020 U/S . 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) SEEKING RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 25 . 08.2020. 2 M A NO. 08 /PUN/ 2021 SANSKRUTI Y U VA PRATI SHTHAN TRUST 2. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS TRIED TO RE - ARGUE THE CASE AN D GROUNDS RAISED IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARE NOTHING BUT SEEKING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSI BLE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE LD. AR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.08.2020 AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS STRONGLY OPPOSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.08.2020 IS WELL REASONED AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY REVIEW OR RECTIFICATION . THE LD. D R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AR COULD NOT BRING OUT A CASE THROUGH THEIR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WHICH CAN BE STATED WITH IN THE PURVIEW MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.08.2020 . THAT WHAT THE LD. AR ESSENTIALLY WANTS TO IS RE - ARGUE THE MATTER SEEKING, THEREFORE, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS DECISION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE REALM OF THE MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE ORDER IN THE GRAB OF RECTIFICATION WHICH IS BASICALLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT . 4 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTEN TIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.08.2020. THERE ARE S ERIES OF DECISIONS BY 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 REC APITULATE ALL OF THEM, BUT SUFFICE TO SAY THAT CORE OF ALL THESE AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS IS THAT POWER FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 3 M A NO. 08 /PUN/ 2021 SANSKRUTI Y U VA PRATI SHTHAN TRUST 254(2) OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN MISTAKE, WHICH IS SO UGHT 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. 5 . THE H ON'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 MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD ITSELF. WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF POWERS AS ENVISAGED U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. 6 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND AS PER THE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATION FILED BEFORE US , WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE, MUCH LESS ANY APPARENT MISTAKE THAT WARRANTS RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 25.08.2020 . THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN WISDOM HAD ADJUDICATE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY 4 M A NO. 08 /PUN/ 2021 SANSKRUTI Y U VA PRATI SHTHAN TRUST ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERI T. 7 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 05 TH DAY OF MARCH , 20 2 1 . SD/ - SD/ - R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 05 TH MARCH , 202 1 . SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), PUNE. 4 . , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 5 . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 5 M A NO. 08 /PUN/ 2021 SANSKRUTI Y U VA PRATI SHTHAN TRUST DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 0 5.0 3 .2021 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 05.0 3 .2021 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER