Shri Anchit Goyal, Bhopal V. THE A.C.I.T. 1(1), Bhopal

MA 66/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3199 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, HON'BLEACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS. 63 TO 67/IND/2013 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS) A NOS. 401 TO 405/IND/2012 A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2009-10 SHRI ANCHIT GOYAL BHOPAL PAN AIKPG 5493R ::: APPLICANT VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMDETAX 1(1)BHOPAL ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 10.7. 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 0 . 7 .2015 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THESE APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REC ALLING THE ORDER DATED 26 TH JULY, 2013 OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2 2. THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED AN APPARENT ERROR BY SETTING ASID E THE ISSUE RELATING TO INTEREST PAYMENTS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL . WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- IN THE ABENCE OF ANY CLEAR FINDING OF THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THESE LOANS, WE SDET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO THESE DELETION. 4. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. UNDER THE GUISE OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE WANTS THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS ORD ER HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE 3 OF EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. VS. DCIT (2010) 186 TAXM AN 111 (MAD.). THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- FROM THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT ABOVE REFERRED TO AND OTHER HIGH COURTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNALS POWER UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS NOT TO REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER BUT ONLY TO AMEND IT WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. WHAT CAN BE TERMED AS MISTAKE APPARENT ? MISTAKE IN GENERAL MEANS TO TAKE OR UNDERSTAND WRONGLY OR INACCURATELY; TO MAKE AN ERROR IN INTERPRETING; IT IS AN ERROR; A FAULT, AMISUNDERSTANDING, A MISCONCEPTION. MISTAKE IN TAXATION LAWS HAS A SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE. IT IS MOSTLY SUBJECTIVE AND THE DIVIDING LINE IS THIN AND INDISCERNIBLE. APPARENT MEANS VISIBLE, 4 CAPABLE OF BEING SEEN, EASILY SEEN, OBVIOUS PLAIN, OPEN TO VIEW, EVIDENT, APPEARS, APPEARING AS REAL AND TRUE, CONSPICUOUS, MANIFEST, SEEMING. THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE WORD APPARENT IS THAT IT MUST BE SOMETHING WHICH APPEARS TO BE EXPENDITURE-FACIE AND INCAPABLE OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE. IF SUCH A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE, SECTION 254(2) EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1). AMENDMENT OF AN ORDER DOES NOT MEAN OBLITERATION OF THE ORDER ORIGINALLY PASSED AND ITS SUBSTITUTION BY A NEW ORDER. WHAT IS MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD OR WHERE DOES A MISTAKE CEASE TO BE MERE MISTAKE AND BECOME MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD IS RATHER DIFFICULT TO DEFIN E 5 PRECISELY, SCIENTIFICALLY AND WITH CERTAINTY. AN ELEMENT OF INDEFINITENESS INHERENT IN ITS VERY NATURE AND IT MUST BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE FACTS OF EACH CASE BY JUDICIOUSLY TRAINED MIND. MERE EXISTENCE OF A MISTAKE OR ERROR WOULD NOT PER SE RENDER THE ORDER AMENABLE FOR RECTIFICATION, BUT SUCH A MISTAKE MUST BE ONE WHICH MUST BE MANIFEST ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'B LE MADRAS HIGH COURT (SUPRA), ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SC OPE AND AMBIT OF APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IS VERY LIMITED. THE SAME IS RESTRICTED TO RECTIFICATION OF T HE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE RECALLING OF THE ENTI RE ORDER WOULD MEAN PASSING A FRESH ORDER. THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. WHAT THE TRIBUNAL IS EN TITLED TO DO IN EXERCISE OF POWER U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT IS TO RECTIFY AN APPARENT MISTAKE AVAILABLE FROM RECORD AND NOT TO 6 REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER OR TO RE-WRITE A FRESH JUDGMENT . WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO INHERENT POWER OF REVIEW . THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JULY, 2015 SD SD (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JULY 13, 2015