DCIT, Noida V. M/s. Techbooks International Ltd., Noida

MA 478/DEL/2022

AI Insights

Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. filed two Miscellaneous Applications against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had previously disposed of appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The applications alleged that there were mistakes apparent on record in the Tribunal's earlier decision regarding the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables for transfer pricing purposes. The Tribunal, after considering the applications and the arguments presented, concluded that the issues raised were not mistakes apparent from the record but rather required a long drawn process of reasoning, thus not eligible for rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 301045 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2023
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Company, T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 479/DEL/2022 [A/o ITA No. 788/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2011-12)] Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd., Block A-Plot No. 37, Sector 60, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. PAN: AABCT 3774A Vs. The Dy. C.I.T, Circle-3, Noida. MA No. 478/DEL/2022 [A/o ITA No. 992/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2011-12) Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd., Block A-Plot No. 37, Sector 60, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. PAN: AABCT 3774A Vs. The Dy. C.I.T, Circle-3, Noida. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao Shri Akshay Uppal, Advs Department By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 03.05.2023 2 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- These two Miscellaneous Applications by the assessee are preferred against the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2022 in ITA Nos. 788 & 789/DEL/2016 being cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue. 2. The assessee has preferred the impugned Miscellaneous Applications alleging A mistake apparent on record while disposing the Revenue’s appeal as well as the assessee’s appeal. 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee was heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the contents of The Miscellaneous Applications duly considered. In the Revenue’s order, the ld. counsel for the assessee contends that TCS e-Serve Ltd should have been excluded from the list of comparables as it was functionally dissimilar and in the assessee’s application, it has been contended that the Tribunal has given a finding on comparability of companies sought to be excluded by the assessee being, Eclerks Services Ltd, ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd and Acropetals. 3 4. After carefully perusing the contents of both the Miscellaneous Applications, we are of the considered opinion that the power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified as is obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Failure by the Tribunal to consider an 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 Tribunal cannot, in exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion. 5. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Company 203 ITR 497 in which the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50. The Supreme Court said (headnote): 4 "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 the record." 6. Considering the facts of the case as mentioned in the impugned Miscellaneous Applications, we do not find any merit in these M.As of the assessee u/s 254(2) of the Act and the same are dismissed. 7. Before parting, the ld. counsel for the assessee has relied upon certain decisions which have been duly considered but found to be not appropriate on the facts of the case of the MAs under consideration. 8. In the result, the Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee in MAS No. 478/DEL/2022 and MA No. 479/DEL/2022 are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 03.05.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [C.M. GARG] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03 rd MAY, 2023. 5 VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Date of dictation Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order