Shri Je.Janardhanan, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 255/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5198 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH, CHENNAI. (BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GE ORGE, A.M.) M.A. NO. 310/MDS/2009 [IN I.T.A. 2204/MDS/2008] & M.A. NO. 317/MDS/2009 [IN C.O. NO.62/MDS/2009 IN I. T.A. NO. 2204/MDS/2008] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 SHRI P.C. JAYARAMAN NO.61, USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. [PAN: AADPJ4338O] VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUSINESS CIRCLE I, CHENNAI 600 034. M.A. NO. 311/MDS/2009 [IN I.T.A. 2211/MDS/2008] & M.A. NO. 316/MDS/2009 [IN C.O. NO.66/MDS/2009 IN I. T.A. NO. 2211/MDS/2008] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 SHRI P.J. RAVI, NO.61, USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. [PAN: AACPR2984E] VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUSINESS CIRCLE I, CHENNAI 600 034. M.A. NO. 312/MDS/2009 [IN I.T.A. 2209/MDS/2008] & M.A. NO. 313/MDS/2009 [IN C.O. NO.64/MDS/2009 IN I. T.A. NO. 2209/MDS/2008] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 SHRI P.J. SEKAR, NO.61, USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 [PAN: AAAHP1437J] VS. THE ASSISTANT/DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUSINESS CIRCLE II, CHENNAI 600 034. M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 2 M.A. NO. 314/MDS/2009 [IN I.T.A. 2203/MDS/2008] & M.A. NO. 315/MDS/2009 [IN C.O. NO.61/MDS/2009 IN I. T.A. NO. 2203/MDS/2008] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SHRI P.J. ETHIRAJ, NO.61, USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 [PAN: AAAPE1130D] VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUSINESS CIRCLE I, CHENNAI 600 034. M.A. NO. 255/MDS/2009 [IN I.T.A. 2205/MDS/2008] & M.A. NO. 256/MDS/2009 [IN C.O. NO.63/MDS/2009 IN I. T.A. NO. 2205/MDS/2008] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SHRI JE. JANARDHANAN, NO.61, USMAN ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 [PAN: AADPJ4514H] VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUSINESS CIRCLE I, CHENNAI 600 034 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN REVENUE BY : SHRI B. SRINIVAS ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. BY MEANS OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE FIVE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES SEEK TO GET RECALLED THE CONSOLIDATED ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 3 DATED 05.06.2009 IN I.T.A. NO.2204/MDS/2008 & CO NO . 62/MDS/09 [IN I.T.A. NO.2204/MDS/2008]; I.T.A. 2211/MDS/2008 & C. O. NO.66/MDS/2009 [IN I.T.A. NO. 2211/MDS/2008]; I.T.A. 2209/MDS/2008 & C.O. NO.64/MDS/2009 [IN I.T.A. NO. 2209/MDS/2008] FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND I.T.A. 2205/MDS/2008 & C.O. NO.63/MDS/2 009 [IN I.T.A. NO. 2205/MDS/2008] FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 ON THE PLEA THAT THE REVENUE FILED APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND AS RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE FILED CO OBJECTING ADMISSION OF THE APPEALS, WHICH ITSELF CALLS FOR ADJUDICATION. 2. ON RECEIPT OF THE HEARING NOTICE, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT SI NCE THE DATE OF POSTING OF FIRST HEARING OF THE CASE CLASHED WITH P RE-FIXED OUTSTATION PROGRAMME, SO HE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING AND O RDER WAS PASSED EX PARTE WHICH IS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE RESPONDENT-A SSESSEE SINCE NON- APPEARANCE WAS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR DELIBERATE BUT D UE TO BONAFIDE OUTSTATION ENGAGEMENT OF THE COUNSEL. THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF SENDING APPLICATION IN THIS R EGARD FOR ADJOURNMENT SIGNED BY HIM AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND IT WAS PRA YED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICATION OF RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES. M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 4 MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT HAS NOT RECEIVED HEARING NOTICE FOR CROSS OBJECTIONS AND OBJECTS THE VERY FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. HENCE, ORDER REQUIRES ADJUDICATION ON T HIS GROUND ALSO. IT WAS FURTHER REQUESTED TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEES IN ORDER TO RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEALS MAY BE HEA RD AGAIN IN ORDER TO RENDER JUSTICE. 3. THE LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE MOVE OF THE ASS ESSEE AND PLEADED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEES HAD AUTHORIZED ANY ADVOC ATE OR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT TO REPRESENT THE CASES NOR THE ASSESSEES HAVE APPEARED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS AS WELL AS COS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEES A T THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL AS WELL AS COS OF THE AS SESSEES THESE WERE DECIDED ON MERIT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADM ITTED THAT HE HAS NOT ATTENDED THE HEARING DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE AND SINCE, THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON MERITS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT A CASE OF RECTIFICATION BY POINTING OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE AND IN CASE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ACCEPTED, IT WOU LD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. THER EFORE, THESE APPLICATIONS MAY BE DISMISSED. M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 5 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT AUTHORIZED ANY A DVOCATE OR CA TO REPRESENT THEIR CASES AND THIS FACT WAS DULY CONSID ERED BY THE BENCH AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN PARA 2 OF THE IMPU GNED CONSOLIDATED ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2. AT THE THRESHOLD IT IS NOTICED THAT ACKNOWLEDG EMENT FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE IS ON RECORD. HOW EVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS ALSO N O POWER OF ATTORNEY ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO DISP OSE OF THESE APPEALS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE. 5. THEREFORE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD IS UNTENABLE AND IS NOT WORTH ACCEPTANCE. OTHERWISE, T HE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON AS TO WHY THEY DID NOT APPEAR AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND NOTHING HAS BEEN STATED SPECIFICALLY TO POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS AND THE POINTS RAISED IN THE APPEALS AND IN CASE THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ACCEPTED THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDERS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R., AND FOR M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 6 THAT PURPOSE USEFUL REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE DE CISIONS HEREINAFTER NOTED. 6.1 THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T & ANOTHER VS. I.T.A.T AND ANOTHER (198 ITR 188) IT HAS HELD AS UN DER: APPELLATE TRIBUNAL POWERS OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL POWER TO RECTIFY ITS ORDER TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT ARBITRATION EXPENSES NOT ALLOWABLE AS A SEPARATE IT EM AS FIXED PERCENTAGE OF AWARD MONEY TAKEN AS PROFIT OF CONTRACT BUSINESS TRIBUNAL CANNOT ALLOW ARBITRATION EXPENSES IN RECTIFICATION PROCEEDING INCOME TAX ACT 1961. SEC 254(2). 6.2 YET IN ANOTHER CASE, THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOKUL CHAND AGARWAL (202 ITR 14), HAS DEALT WITH TH E SAME ISSUE AND OPINED AS UNDER: SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, EMPOWE RS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254( 1) TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN APPLICATION. THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIB UNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER THUS DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IF, IN ITS ORDER , THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHICH IS PATENT AND OBVIOUS ON THE BASIS OF THE M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 7 RECORD, THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE TRIB UNAL UNDER SECTION 254(2) WILL BE ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER. AN OV ERSIGHT OF A FACT CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIAB LE UNDER SECTION 254(2). THIS MIGHT, AT THE WORST, LEAD TO P ERVERSITY OF THE ORDER FOR WHICH THE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT UNDER SECTION 254(2) BUT A REFERENCE PROCEEDING UN DER SECTION 256. THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT THE REMEDY BY W AY OF REVIEW IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE AND, UNLESS CLOTH ED WITH SUCH POWER BY THE STATUTE, NO AUTHORITY CAN EXERCISE T HE POWER. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IMPLY PROCEEDINGS WHERE A PARTY, AS OF RIGHT, CAN APPLY FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE M ATTER, ALREADY DECIDED UPON, AFTER A FRESH HEARING ON THE MERITS O THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES. SUCH REMEDY IS CERTAINLY NOT PROVIDED BY THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN RESPEC T OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6.3 IN SIMILAR SITUATION, WHILE DEALING WITH THE RE CTIFICATION, THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND AN R VS. I.T.A.T AND ANR (206 ITR 126 HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEING A CREATURE OF THE STAT UTE, HAS TO CONFINE ITSELF IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTIO N TO THE ENABLING OR EMPOWERING TERMS OF THE STATUTE. IT HAS NO INHERENT POWER. EVEN OTHERWISE, IN CASES WHERE SPE CIFIC PROVISION DELINEATES THE POWERS OF THE COURT OR TRI BUNAL, IT CANNOT DRAW UPON ITS ASSUMED INHERENT JURISDICTION AN D PASS M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 8 ORDERS AS IT PLEASES. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION WH ICH IS SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE EXE RCISED IN TERMS OF THAT PROVISION. IT CANNOT BE ENLARGED ON A NY ASSUMPTION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GOT AN INHERENT POWE R OF RECTIFICATION OR REVIEW OR REVISION. IT IS AXIOMATI C THAT SUCH POWER OF REVIEW OR REVISION HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED. UNLESS THERE IS A MISTAKE A PPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE SENSE OF PATENT, OBVIOUS AND CLEAR ERROR OR MISTAKE, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT RECALL ITS PRE VIOUS ORDER. IF THE ERROR OR MISTAKE IS ONE WHICH COULD B E ESTABLISHED ONLY BY LONG DRAWN ARGUMENTS OR BY A PR OCESS OF INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH, IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM THE RECORD. 6.4 FURTHER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BR. P. LTD. (176 ITR 535) HAS HELD AS UNDER: APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DUTY TO CONSIDER CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND TOTALITY OF FACTS NO NEED TO STATE SO IN APPELLATE ORDER SPECIFICALLY INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, SEC. 254 FURTHER IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MEREL Y TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEA RS ON THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 9 JUDGMENT. IF THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE JUDG MENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT A LL RELEVANT MATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVA NT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, UNLESS , OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVER SE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN IT S JUDGEMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONS IDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC FORMULA; IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT IT HAS, IN FA CT, DONE SO, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6.5 SIMILARLY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. (203 ITR 497) .IT IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDERS UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ONLY POWER WHICH THE TR IBUNAL POSSESSES IS TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE IN ITS OWN ORDE R WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD.. THE POWER OF RECTIFICA TION UNDER SECTION 254(2) CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED S AN OBVIOUS AND PAT ENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 10 WHICH REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINION. FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL T O CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR AR RIVING AT A CONCLUSION IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENTS 6.6 WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT HERE FROM HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION IN T.C.(A) NO. 156 OF 2006 DATED 21.08.2007 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER :- THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. WHE N THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED AN ISSUE BY APPLYING ITS MIND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO NECESSITY WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. EVEN AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE REASON IN THE WH OLE ORDER AS TO HOW THE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED AND FOR WHAT REAS ONS. THERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE RECOR D AND THEREBY THE TRIBUNAL SAT AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY O VER ITS OWN ORDER. IT IS COMPLETELY IMPERMISSIBLE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS TRAVELED OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION TO ALLOW A MISCE LLANEOUS PETITION IN THE NAME OF REVIEWING ITS OWN ORDER. M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 11 IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION, THE TRIBUNAL REVIEWED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND ALLOWED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE REHE ARING OF THE APPEAL FOR A FRESH DISPOSAL AND DOING SO, WOULD OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAK ES AND POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2) IS L IMITED AND NARROW. IT IS RESTRICTED TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTA KES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. RECALLING THE ORDER OBVIOUSLY WOULD MEAN PASSING OF A FRESH ORDER. RECALLING OF THE ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. ONLY G LARING AND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ALON E CAN BE RECTIFIED AND HENCE ANYTHING DEBATABLE CANNOT BE A SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION. 6.7 FURTHER, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT EXPOSITION ON THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) AS REPORTED IN THE CASE OF RAS BIHARI BANSAL VS. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 36 5:- SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ENABLES T HE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN OVERSIGHT OF A FACT CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UN DER THIS SECTION. SIMILARLY, FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSID ER AN M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO NO NO NOS SS S. .. .310 310310 310- -- -317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 317 & 255 - -- -256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 256/MDS/09 12 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 MERE FACT THAT T HE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT ALLOWED A DEDUCTION, EVEN IF THE CON CLUSION IS WRONG, WILL BE NO GROUND FOR MOVING AN APPLICATI ON UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN THE GARB OF A N APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO REOPEN AND RE-ARGUE THE WHOLE MATTER, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION. 6.8. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES , IN THE LIGHT OF RATIO OF DECISIONS CITED AND DISCUSSION AS HELD ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND D ISMISS THEM BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 7. IN THE RESULT, M.PS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09.11.2010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VL/- DATED :. 09.11.2010. COPY TO: ., THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A )/CIT/D.R.