Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vishwasta Nidhi, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,(Exemptions) -1, Pune

MA 158/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application (MA No.158/PUN/2023) filed by Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vishwasta Nidhi against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, dated 14.12.2022, concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The application was intended to rectify alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's earlier decision. However, the Tribunal, led by Vice President R.S. Syal and Judicial Member Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, concluded that the issues raised in the application were already adjudicated based on factual analysis and applicable judicial decisions. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court and High Court decisions to affirm that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent, not requiring a long process of reasoning or debate on legal points.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 138121 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2023
• Other Referred Cases: T.S.Balaram, ITO v. M/s. Volkart Brothers, ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NITIN PATIL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „B‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON. VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON. JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.158/PUN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.928/PUN/2018) (A.Y. 2011-12) Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vishwasta Nidhi, C/o Shah Khandelwal Jain & Associates, CAs, Level-3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune – 411 001 PAN : AAATR 6805 N vs ITO (Exemptions)-1, Pune. Applicants Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, CA Revenue by : Shri Nitin Patil, Addl.CIT-DR Date of hearing : 20/10/2023 Date of pronouncement : 20/10/2023 ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This Misc. Application preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 928/PUN/2018, dated 14.12.2022 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. We have gone through the contents of the Misc. Application as well as the impugned order of the Tribunal. We observe from the impugned order of the Tribunal that each and every issue has been decided on factual analysis and applicable judicial decisions. We have also read the contents of the Misc. Application, and have heard the ld.AR. The Tribunal can rectify only mistake apparent from record ITA No.158/PUN/2023 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vishwasta Nidhi 2 u/sec. 254(2) of the Act. When we say, mistake apparent from record, we take guidance from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balaram, ITO v. M/s. Volkart Brothers [1971 AIR 2204] and therein it has been stated as follows:- “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 conceivably be two opinions - A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record.” 3. That, all the issues before the Tribunal in the impugned order has been adjudicated considering the entire facts and circumstances involved in the case and also the judicial principles vis-a-vis the facts in the case of the assessee. That, on hearing the submission of the ld.AR and giving our thoughtful consideration to the contents of the Misc. Application before us, we observe and hold that the assessee in the garb of Misc. Application u/sec. 254(2) of the Act is seeking review of the entire order of the Tribunal which is beyond the permissible limit of the statute. Ld.DR also submitted placing strong reliance on the order of the Tribunal that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal and the issues have been decided on merits considering each and every factual details. 4. We also find that there are series of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Courts expounding scope of exercising powers u/sec. 254(2) of the Act. We do not deem it ITA No.158/PUN/2023 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vishwasta Nidhi 3 necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification u/sec. 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought 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 Ltd., 262 ITR 146 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 305 ITR 227. 5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company reported in 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 the 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. ITA No.158/PUN/2023 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vishwasta Nidhi 4 6. In view of the above and as per the Misc. Application filed before us, we do not find any mistake, much less any apparent mistake that warrants rectification in the order of Tribunal dated 14.12.2022. The Tribunal in its own wisdom after considering the facts of the case and the documents on record had adjudicated the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly adjudicated the issues on merits and there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal. In view thereof, Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as devoid of any merits. 7. In the result, Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 20 th October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. SYAL) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 20 th October, 2023 vr/- Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, “B” Bench Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.