Tax Recovery Officer, Karnal V. Ram Bahadur Khurania, Kaithal

MA 734/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order that directed the deletion of interest charged under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had erred in its directive, which led to the filing of the M.A. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Kerala and Bombay High Courts, clarified that its role was not to review its decisions but to correct any apparent mistakes. The Tribunal found no such mistake in the original order and dismissed the M.A.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122177 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Income Tax Officer vs. A. V. Thomas & Co. (1986) 160 ITR 818 (Kerala), CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.), CIT vs. Earnest Exports Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 577 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURJEET SINGH SETHI
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F : DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.734/Del./2018 Arising out of IT(SS)A.No. 01/Del/2018 Block Period : 01.04.1987 to 06.06.1997 Tax Recovery Officer TRO, Karnal, Haryana vs. Shri Ram Bahadur Khurania, C/o. Permil Goel, Advocate, Ambala Road, Kaithal PAN : ADEPB 8073 H (Applicant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Gurjeet Singh Sethi, C.A. For Assessee : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. : This M.A. has been filed by the Revenue seeking rectification in the alleged mistake apparent on record in IT(SS)A. No.01/Del./2018 dated 25.05.2018, for the Block Period 01.04.1987 to 06.06.1997. 2 M.A.No.734/Del./2018 in IT(SS)A.No.01/Del./2018 Shri Ram Bahadur Khurania., New Delhi. 2. In the M.A. it is the contention of the Revenue that in order it was held by the Tribunal in para 8 has directed the AO “to delete the interest charged u/s 220(2) of the Act, subject to the verification that the original demand notice was duly complied with by the assessee.”. It is the contention of the Revenue that the Hon’ble ITAT has wrongly directed the total deletion of the interest charged u/s 220(2) of the Act, instead of directing the TRO to charge the interest from the date of the order of the Tribunal i.e. 07.11.2008, vide which the demand raised originally in the year 2004 was restored. The Revenue, therefore, submits that the Miscellaneous Application be kindly allowed, and the necessary order be kindly passed by the Hon’ble ITAT. 3. The Learned A.R. on the other hand submitted that there is no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal while deciding the issue following the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Income Tax Officer vs. A. V. Thomas & Co. (1986) 160 ITR 818 (Kerala) directed the AO to delete the interest charged 3 M.A.No.734/Del./2018 in IT(SS)A.No.01/Del./2018 Shri Ram Bahadur Khurania., New Delhi. under Section 220(2) of the Act, subject to the verification that the original demand notice was duly complied with by the assessee. He further submitted that through the present M.A. the Revenue is seeking for review of the Order of the Tribunal which is not permissible under the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the M.A. filed by the Revenue be dismissed. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and the material available on record. Through the present M.A, Revenue’s contention is that the Hon’ble ITAT has wrongly directed the total deletion of the interest charged u/s 220(2) of the Act., instead of directing the TRO to charge the interest from the date of the order of the Tribunal i.e. 07.11.2008, vide which the demand raised originally in the year 2004 was restored. 4.1. It is the settled position of law that power of rectification under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 can be exercised only when the mistake that is sought to be 4 M.A.No.734/Del./2018 in IT(SS)A.No.01/Del./2018 Shri Ram Bahadur Khurania., New Delhi. rectified is obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record and further the Tribunal cannot exercise its power of rectification looking 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 record itself. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) has held that the Appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own order under the provisions of the Act and the only power that the Tribunal possess is to rectify any mistake in its order which is apparent in record itself. We further find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Earnest Exports Ltd., [2010] 323 ITR 577 (Bom.) has observed as under : “10. The power under section 254(2) is confined to a rectification of a mistake apparent on record. Section 254(2) is not a carte blanche for the Tribunal to change its own view by substituting a view which it believes 5 M.A.No.734/Del./2018 in IT(SS)A.No.01/Del./2018 Shri Ram Bahadur Khurania., New Delhi. should have been taken in the first instance. Section 254(2) is not a mandate to unsettle decisions taken after due reflection. The provision empowers the Tribunal to correct mistakes, errors and omissions apparent on the face. The section is not an avenue to revive a proceeding by recourse to a disingenuous argument nor does it contemplate a fresh look at a decision recorded on the merits, however appealing an alternate view may seem. Unless a sense of restraint is observed, judicial discipline would be the casualty. That is not what Parliament envisaged”. 4.2. In view of the afore-cited settled legal position, we are of the view that since the Revenue has failed to point- out any mistake apparent on record as contemplated under section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We are therefore not inclined to recall the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA.No.734/Del./2018 dated 25.05.2018 and thus the M.A. of the Revenue is dismissed. 6 M.A.No.734/Del./2018 in IT(SS)A.No.01/Del./2018 Shri Ram Bahadur Khurania., New Delhi. 5. In the result, M.A. of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.12.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi, Dated 23 rd December, 2022 Priti Yadav/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT ‘G’ Bench, Delhi 6. Guard File. // By Order // Assistant Registrar : ITAT Delhi Benches : Delhi.