Income Tax Officer, Ward, Seoni V. Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Seoni

MA 14/JAB/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5842 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B GANGULY
• Assessee Lawyers: P D CHOUGALE
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH , JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.14/JAB/201 7 [IN ITA NO. 11/JAB/2017] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT , SEONI, SAHKARI BHAVAN, G. N. ROAD SEONI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER SEONI T AN /PAN : AAAJ2044G (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP LIC ANT BY: SHRI B. GANGULY, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P. D. CHOUGALE, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 05 04 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 04 201 9 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P . : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PRONOUNCED ON 18/8/2017 IN ITA NO.11/JAB/2017. 2 . THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,93,9 00/ - WAS MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18/8/2017 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL CH ALL ENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,93,900 / - . THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THIS ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT A.O. MADE THE A D DITION WITHOUT GIVING ITS SET OFF AGAINST AVAILABLE UNABSORBED BUS I N ESS LOSS OF THE EARLIER YEAR. THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE L D THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE S TATEMENT, INCOME M.A. NO.14/JAB/2014 PAGE 2 OF 9 FROM BANKING BUSINESS AT RS. 4, 56,27,398, WH E REAS, IN PART - B OF THE RETURN OF I NCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN COME FR O M BUSINESS AT RS.4,64, 74,638 IN WHICH RS.4,62,80,735 IS SHOWN AS SET - OFF AGAINST BROUGHT FORWAR D LOSSES AND THE BALANCE OF RS.1 ,93,900 HAS SHOWN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A. O . FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PAY THE TAXES OF RS .56,825 ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,93,900. THE ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. 4 . THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUB M ISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPL A INED THAT ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECTED TO STATUTORY AUDIT AND REITERATED THE FACTS STATED BEFORE A.O. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT RECORDS DEPRECIATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMS PROVIDED IN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND BANKING BUSINESS NORMS. HOWEVER, FOR CLAIM OF SUCH DEPRECIATION AND DEDUCTION FROM IS PROFITS FOR DECLARING INCOME UNDER I.T. ACT, IT IS FIRST ADDED BACK TO THE PROFITS SHOWN I N P & L A/C AND THEN THE INCOME ALL O WABLE UNDER THIS ACT IS CLAIMED. THE AS S ESSEE FOLLOWED THIS METHOD CONSISTENTLY . THE TWO FIGURES OF DEPRECIATION FROM THE SAME FIXED ASSETS I .E. , ONE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER ALLOWABLE UNDE R I.T. ACT ARE RS .8,39,130 AND RS.4, 09,648 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ACC O UNTING PERIOD/PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WH ILE THE CLAIM UNDER THE ACT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY MADE AT RS.4,09 ,649, WHI CH IS IN COLUMN NO.42 OF PART - A OF P & L A/C OF THE RETURN OF INCOME MEANT FOR SHOWING DEPRECIATION AS PER BOOK S OF ACCOUNT, THE FIGURE OF RS. 10,33,033 HAS BEEN SHOWN AS AGAINST THE CORRECT FIGURE OF RS.8,39,130. SIMIL ARLY, THE FIGURE OF RS.8.98 CRO RES TOW ARDS OTHER EXPENSES HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN COLUMN NO.36 OF P & L A/C WHEREAS THE ACTUAL FIGURE AS PER P & L A/C IS RS.9.00 CRORES. THESE TWO CLAIMS, ONE BEING EXCESS DEPRECIATION AND OTHER BEING UNDER THE CLAIM FOR OTHER EXPENSES NEUTRALIZE IMPACT OF EACH OTHE R AND ULTIMATELY, THE P &.L A/C IS NOT EFFECTED IN ANY MANNER . THE ASSESSEE WHILE LOOKING FOR THE REASONS FOR SUCH MISTAKE HAS FOUND THAT IT HAS HAPPENED DUE TO MISTAKE MADE BY THE AUDITOR IN MENTIONING THE CORRECT FIGURE OF DEPRECIATION I N PART B OF ANNEX URE I OF THE REPORT. THE A UDITOR HAS SHOWN DEPRECIATION AT RS. 10,33,033 INSTEAD OF CORRECT FIGURE OF RS.8,39,130. IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO HOW AND WHEREFROM THIS FIGURE M.A. NO.14/JAB/2014 PAGE 3 OF 9 OF RS.10,33,033 HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY HIM. THE INCORRECT FIGURE IS SHOWN IN COLUMN NO .42. TH E ABOVE FACTS WERE EXPLAINED TO THE A.O. THEREFORE, ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AS PER THE AMENDED STATEMENT OF FACTS FOUND THAT DEPRECIATION CLAIMED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS ADDED BACK TO THE PROFIT AND DEPRECIATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF I.T. RULES. AS PER ASSESSEE, THE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED OF RS.8,39,130 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCORRECTLY CL AIME D DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 10,33,033. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT O F THE DEPRECIATION OF HIGHER AMOUNT . T HE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ADMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXCESS DEPR ECIATION OF RS.1,93,900. THE LD. CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSE E CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,93,900. THE GROUND OF A SSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3 . BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS WRONGLY DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATING TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON DEPRECIATION. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE MISTAKE HAPPENED IN SHO WING RS.10,33, 033/ - IN COL. NO.42 AS AGAINST THE CORRECT FIGURE OF RS.8,98,62,301/ - . THEREFORE, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. 4 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A CORRECT VIEW AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5 . HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL VIS - - VIS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.1,93,900/ - CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 5 OF ITS ORDER AND HAS GIVEN A CATEGORIC AL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXCESS DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,93,900/ - , AS ALSO M.A. NO.14/JAB/2014 PAGE 4 OF 9 ADMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE , WE FIND NO ERROR APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A PARTICULAR VIEW IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS, THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE REVIEWED. 6 . THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) IS VERY LIMITED AND ONLY THOSE ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT OR ARITHMETICAL CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED. THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY EXAMINED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN RECTIFY ONLY THOSE MISTAKES WHICH ARE ARITHMETICAL OR CLERICAL OR APPARENT IN ITS ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER IN THE GRAB OF RECTIFICATION. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT IF THE TRIBUNAL COMMITS AN ERROR OF JUDGEMENT, THAT ERROR CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AS THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT EMPOWERED BY THE STATUTE TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. 7 . IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VARDHMAN SPINNING , 226 ITR 296 (P&H), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT H AVE HELD IN SPECIFIC TERMS THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CREATION OF STATUTES AND IT CAN EXERCISE ONLY THOSE POWERS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFERRED UPON IT. THE ONLY POWER CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE AP PARENT FROM RECORD. THE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW OR MODIFY ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH ON THE BASIS OF SUPPOSED INHERENT RIGHTS. U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AFTER HEARING THE CONTESTING PARTIE S, CAN PASS SUCH ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT. SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THE DATE OF AN ORDER TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPA RENT FROM RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN APPLICATION MADE. WHAT CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION IS A M.A. NO.14/JAB/2014 PAGE 5 OF 9 MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT AND PATENT. THE MISTAKE HAS TO BE SUCH FOR WHICH NO ELABORATE REASONS OR INQUIRY IS NECESSARY. WHERE TWO OPINIONS ARE POS SIBLE, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. 8 . IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUMAN TEA AND PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. , 226 ITR 34 (CAL), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAVE EXPRESSED SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS AFTER HOL DING THAT UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, AN ORDER, WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL REACHES FINALITY THE MOMENT THE SAME IS PASSED; CANNOT BE TOUCHED THEREAFTER. BY SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED T O RECTIFY MISTAKES IN ITS ORDERS, WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS. THE EXPRESSION MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MEANS A MISTAKE EITHER CLERICAL OR GRAMMATICAL OR ARITHMETICAL OR OF LIKE NATURE, WHICH CAN BE DETECTED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY NECESSITY TO RE - ARGUE THE MATTER OR TO RE - APPRAISE THE FACT AS APPEARING FROM THE RECORDS. IN ANOTHER CASE CIT VS. GOLAL CHAND AGARWAL , 202 ITR 14 (CAL), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAVE ALSO HELD THAT SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER PASSED U/S 254(1) TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN APPLICATION. IF IN ITS ORDER THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHICH IS PATENT AND OBVIOUS ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD, THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) WILL BE ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER. AN OVERSIGHT OF A FACT CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 254(2). THIS MIGHT, AT THE WORST, LEAD TO PERVERSITY OF THE ORDER FOR WHICH THE REMEDY AVA ILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER SECTION 254(2) BUT A REFERENCE PROCEEDINGS U/S 256. THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT THE REMEDY BY WAY OF REVIEW IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE AND UNLESS CLOTHED WITH SUCH POWER BY THE STATUTE, NO AUTHORITY CAN EXERCISE THE POWER . M.A. NO.14/JAB/2014 PAGE 6 OF 9 9 . THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITAT , 143 CTR 446 (ALLD) HAS HELD THAT SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254 CONFERS AMPLE POWERS ON THE TRIBUNAL TO PASS SUCH ORDERS IN ANY APPEAL FILED BEFORE IT AS IT THINKS FIT. SUB - SECTION (2 ) OF SECTION 254 POSTULATES THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB - SEC. (1) OF SECTION 254 WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFERRED BY SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 FOR RECT IFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SECTION 254(2). FURTHER, REVIEWING AND RECALLING AN ORDER IS ONE THING AND RECTIFYING A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS QUITE ANOTHER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION FOR REVIEW BY TRIBUNAL, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE RECALLED OR REVIEWED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254 WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE H IGH COURT OF M.P. IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH CHAND MEHTA VS. CIT, 220 ITR 277 (M.P) IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIP S HAVE HELD THAT SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT IS VERY LIMITED AND IT IS ONLY THE APPARENT ERROR WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED. 10 . THEIR LORDSHIP S OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T.S. BALARAM ITO VS. VOLKART BROTHERS , 82 ITR 50 (SC) HAVE HELD THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE FURTHER HELD THAT IF A STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON HAS BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT PRODUCING HIM IN THE WI TNESS BOX, THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT ACT UPON THAT STATEMENT WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE WITNESS, BUT THAT IS A MATTER NOT FOR RECTIFICATION BUT IT IS A MATTER RELATING TO THE MERITS OF THE M.A. NO.14/JAB/2014 PAGE 7 OF 9 CASE AS TO WHETHER THE TRI BUNAL HAS GONE WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT OF A PARTICULAR PERSON AND HAS ACTED UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE SAME PERSON WHICH WAS RECORDED BY THE ITO WITHOUT BEING PERMITTED TO CROSS EXAMINE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT A MATTER IN WHICH THE APPA RENT ERROR IS INVOLVED BUT IT IS A MATTER MORE OF MERIT AND CANNOT BE RECTIFIED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION. THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE MAKING A RECTIFICATION WERE AGAIN EXAMINED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HERO CYCLES PVT. LTD. , 228 ITR 463 (SC) IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT RECTIFICATION CAN ONLY BE MADE WHEN A GLARING MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW COMMITTED BY THE OFFICER PASSING THE ORDER BECOMES APPARENT FROM RECORD. RECTIFICATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IF THE QUESTION IS DEBAT ABLE. MOREOVER, A POINT WHICH WAS NOT EXAMINED ON FACTS OR IN LAW CANNOT BE DEALT WITH AS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. ITAT , 229 ITR 651 (PAT.), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF PATNA HIGH COURT HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED A SIMILAR OBSERVATION AFTER HOLDING THAT SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING A MISTAKE FROM RECORD. HOWEVER, SECTION 254(2) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS ORDER OR TO SIT IN A PPEAL OVER ITS EARLIER ORDER. IF IT IS DONE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO AN AMENDMENT OF AN EARLIER ORDER WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, BUT IT WOULD BE AN ORDER PASSED ON REAPPRAISAL OF THE MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON A FRESH A PPLICATION OF THE LEGAL POSITION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 11 . IN THE CASE OF MS. DEEKSHA SURI VS. ITAT , 232 ITR 395 (DELHI), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF DELHI HIGH COURT HAVE HELD IN SPECIFIC TERMS THAT THE INCOME - TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE. IT HAS NOT BEEN VESTED WITH THE REVIEW JURISDICTION BY THE STATUTE CREATING IT. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS M.A. NO.14/JAB/2014 PAGE 8 OF 9 OWN JUDGEMENTS OR ORDERS. THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE COURTS MAY OPEN OR VACAT E THEIR JUDGEMENTS ARE GENERALLY MATTERS WHICH RENDER THE JUDGEMENT VOID OR WHICH ARE SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTES AUTHORIZING SUCH SECTIONS. THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 IS CLEAR. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE EXERCISING THE JURISDIC TION IS WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD AND THE OBJECT IS ACHIEVED BY AMENDING ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT. A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LON G DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD . 12 . SIMILAR VIEWS HAVE ALSO BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. PRAHLAD RAI TODI , 251 ITR 833 (G A U) BY HOLDING THAT A BARE LOOK AT SECTION 254(2) WILL SHOW THAT THIS SECTION GIVES THE POWER TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT AND TO MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MIS TAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE ASSESSEE. SO, WHEN WE SPEAK OF AMENDMENT OR RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE THE EARLIER ORDER CAN NEVER BE RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE EARLIER ORDER MUST HOLD THE FIELD AND THE MISTAKE CAN BE RECTIFI ED OR AMENDED CAN BE MADE TO THE ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT, IN LAW AND FACTS, RECALL AND DESTROY ITS FINAL ORDER AS A WHOLE WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY THE SAME ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL ACTUALLY AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF I TS EARLIER ORDER AND THAT POWER TO REVIEW IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL. 13 . WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE, AS NO ERROR APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS POINTED OUT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO DISPUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IS SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE M.A. NO.14/JAB/2014 PAGE 9 OF 9 TRIBUNAL , WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AND WE , ACCORDINGLY , REJECT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 14 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 34(4) OF THE ITAT RULES , 1963, BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD ON 24/4/2019 . SD/ - SD/ - [ T. S. KAPOOR ] [ A. D. JAIN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 24 /0 4 / 201 9 JJ: 230 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR