V E L Software Ltd., Nashik V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Nashik

MA 33/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 33/PUN/2023) filed by VEL Software Ltd. against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18/05/2022 concerning the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee sought to recall the Tribunal's order, claiming that there was a mistake apparent from the record in not considering certain facts and a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steller Investment 253 ITR 263 (SC). The Revenue opposed the application, arguing that it was essentially a review of the Tribunal's decision, which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant legal precedents, dismissed the application, affirming that there was no apparent mistake in the original order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 138058 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Steller Investment 253 ITR 263 (SC), ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 262 ITR 146, CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company 203 ITR 497
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMASHU CHOUDHURY
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „A‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No. 33/PUN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.1173/PUN/2016) (A.Y. 2001-02) VEL Software Ltd., 5, Gurukripa, Purbai Rajednra Complex, Nashik Road, Nashik. PAN: AAACV 7830 N vs DCIT, Circle-2, Nashik. Applicant/Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by : Shri Himashu Choudhury, AR Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR Date of hearing : 02/06/2023 Date of pronouncement : 07/06/2023 O R D E R Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This Misc. Application preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1173/PUN/2016, dated 18/05/2022 for A.Y.2001-02. 2. Ld.AR sought adjournment by filing an application dated 12/05/2023, which is rejected and the matter is heard and discussed on merits. 3. The ld.AR submitted that there was a mistake apparent from record in not considering the facts and also not considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the assessee in the case of Steller Investment 253 ITR 263 (SC). Therefore, requested MA No.33/PUN/2023 M/s. VEL Software Ltd. 2 to recall the order of the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 4. The Ld. DR strongly opposed to the Misc. Application filed by the assessee and submitted that the order of the Tribunal dated 18.05.2022 is well reasoned and the same does not call for any review or rectification. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee has failed to point out any apparent mistake in the order warranting rectification. The assessee is seeking review of the entire order in the garb of rectification which is basically beyond the scope of sec.254(2) of the Act. The Ld. DR prayed for dismissing the Misc. Application filed by the assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions of the parties and considered the contents in Misc. Application filed by the assessee and have also gone through our order (supra). By this Misc. Application, 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. 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 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 MA No.33/PUN/2023 M/s. VEL Software Ltd. 3 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 18.05.2022. The Tribunal in its own wisdom after considering the judgments of the MA No.33/PUN/2023 M/s. VEL Software Ltd. 4 Hon‟ble Supreme Court and also decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court had adjudicated the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly adjudicated the issue on merits and there is no apparent error in the order of the Tribunal. In view thereof, Misc. Application filed the assessee is dismissed as devoid of any merits. 10. In the result, Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 07 th June, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 07 th June, 2023 vr/- Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 5. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench Pune. 6. Guard File. By Order // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.