LATE AJIT PRAMOD KUMAR JOGI THROUGH LRS SMT. RENU JOGI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), RAIPUR

WPT/1/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the assessment of undisclosed income amounting to Rs. 45,00,000 for the Assessment Year 2004-05, which was linked to a CBI investigation. Initially, the Income Tax Officer added this amount as undisclosed income based on the CBI's findings. The petitioner, Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi, contested this addition, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later set aside the addition. However, the Income Tax Department appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal based on the monetary limits set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal later recalled its order upon the Revenue's application, citing new information from the CBI, leading to the present writ petition challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to recall its order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752370 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4), Mumbai vs Reliance Telecom Limited, Commissioner of Income Tax vs Gokul Chand Agrawal, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Rajkot vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur, Mumbai vs RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: KSHITIJ SHARMA
• Keywords: CBI investigation; Income tax appellate tribunal; Miscellaneous Application; Rectification of mistake; Undisclosed income
• Section: 143(3); 254(2); 226; 227

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 13 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (T) No. 1 of 2024 Order Reserved On : 05 .01.2024 Order Pronounced On : 12 .01.2024 Late Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi Through Lrs Smt. Renu Jogi Aged About 73 Years W/o Late Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi R/o Anugrah, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer 3(3), Raipur Office Of The Income Tax Officer 3(3), Raipur, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Through Sr. Private Secretary, Central Secretariat Building, 5th Floor, B And C Wing Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492018 3. Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001 -Respondents ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhury, Advocate ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed through the legal heir of the deceased petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur on 19.10.2023 in Miscellaneous Application No. 31/RPR/2019 for the assessment year 2004-05 by which the learned Appellate Tribunal has allowed the Miscellaneous application and recalled the order dated Page 2 of 13 17.01.2019 passed in I.T.A. No. 124/RPR/2011 and observed in paragraph 7 as under :- '7. We have considered the rival contention, perused the material available on record and orders of the ITAT as well as the revenue authorities. On perusal of the assessment order, it is apparent that case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) on the basis of statement of Shri Virendra Pandey, the complainant which were recorded on oath u/s 131 of the IT Act, wherein certain transactions pertaining to assessee were unearthed and, therefore, the assessee was requested to present facts and evidences in support of his case in absence of which the Assessing Officer was at liberty to treat the amount of Rs. 45 Lakh as undisclosed Income of the assessee. In the later part of the assessment order, it has been emerged that the inspector of Income Tax ward 2(1) was deputed for the purpose of procuring the information from CBI, who after going through the documents including statements provided to him by CBI has furnished a detailed speaking report dated 15/12/2006. It is also noted by the Ld. AO that the assessee was not able to produce any evidence specially any documentary evidence in support of his claim that there is no force in the case in the CBI case and that the CBI as an investigation agency has not found anything against him. On perusal of such facts, it is evident that there was certain information which was provided by the CBI which was submitted in form of a report by the inspector to the AO and therefore the case of the assessee. Accordingly, the contention of the assessee that there was no information provided by the CBI and, thus, exceptions carved out in clause No. 10(e) of CBDT's Circular No. 3/2018 are not applicable in the present case, is not comprehensible and, therefore, are not accepted. In our considered opinion the present case is squarely covered by the said exception under clause No. 10(e) of CBDT's Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11/07/2018, Para 10 of the said circular was amended on 20/08/2018 vide F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt), wherein the exception qua the issues enumerated in the said para are advised to be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less then the monetary limits specified. Para 10(e) specifies the condition \"where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIO/Director general of GST intelligence (DGGI)\". Consequently, the contention raised by the Revenue in filing of the present MA are found to be on right footing, therefore are appropriate, thus, the order passed in ITA No. 124/RPR/2011 is directed to be recall Page 3 of 13 and to consider the grounds therein for fresh adjudication on merits. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the records are that income tax department has initiated proceeding for assessment of income tax under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner. The Assessing Authority vide its order dated 29.12.2006 has added Rs. 45,00,000/- as undisclosed income to the total income which belongs to assessee for the Assessment Year 2004-05. This addition was done as per the investigation done by the C.B.I. and the additional income belongs to the assessee which the assesse has not been able to refute by way of any documentary evidence. 3. Being aggrieved with the order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur which was registered as Appeal No. 0380/06-07. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide its order dated 28.02.2011 set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer and granted relief from addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- being not proved, against that order the Revenue has preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal challenging the legality and propriety of the order passed by the appellate authority. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.01.2019 and observed in paragraph No. 5 as under :- “5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we find that Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Id. CIT(A) in respect of the relief given by him. As per the recent announcement of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 11.07.2018 (Circular No. 3 of 2018), no Department appeals are to be filed against relief given by ld. CIT(A) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal unless the tax effect, excluding interest, exceeds Rs.20 lakhs and it further states that the instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals also. In the present case, since it is an undisputed fact that on the additions which are in dispute, the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs and in the absence of any material placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the issue in the present appeal is covered by exceptions provided in para 10 of the aforesaid CBDT Page 4 of 13 Circular, we are of the view that the monetary limit prescribed by the instructions of the aforesaid CBDT Circular would be applicable to the present appeal of the Department. We therefore hold the present appeal of Revenue to be not maintainable on account of low tax effect and accordingly dismiss the appeal of Revenue without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the aforesaid CBDT Circular is not applicable, it would be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal. Thus, without going into the merits, the grounds of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. Thereafter, the Income Tax Department has preferred an application under Section 254(2) with Rule 13 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2007 mainly contending that the assessment order was passed pursuant to seizure of cash by the CBI and intimation of the same was sent to the department. As per para 10(e) of CBDT circular number 3/2018 which reads as under:- “Where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), 5. It has been further contended that the monetary limits prescribed in Para 3 of the said circular will not apply and appeal will be filed inspite of the low tax effect. As there is apparent mistake on the face of the record and a case is made out for exercising of power under Section 245(2) of the Income Tax Act. The learned Appellate Tribunal considered the above factual matrix and has admitted the application and vide its order dated 19.10.2023 has passed the order allowing the M.A.31/RPR/2019 of Revenue and fixed the ITA No. 124/RPR/2011 for hearing. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India mainly contending that in view Page 5 of 13 of the specific bar under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act the present order is bad in law and therefore, the same may kindly be quashed. He would further submit that learned Tribunal has transgressed its jurisdiction and power conferred upon it under Section 254(2) of the Act. Learned Tribunal by allowing the Miscellaneous Application has gone into the merits of the case which is beyond its jurisdiction. He would further submit that the ground raised by the Revenue is incorrect facts as there is no equiry being initiated as alleged by the Revenue. Thus he would pray for quashing of the impugned order as bad in law and on facts. To substantiate his submission he would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT- 4), Mumbai vs Reliance Telecom Limited {2021 SCC Online SC 1170) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 10 has held as under :- 10. Having gone through both the orders passed by the ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. While allowing the application under Section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013, it appears that the ITAT has re- heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record only. Therefore, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. While considering the application under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. 6. He would further rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Culcutta in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Gokul Chand Agrawal {1992 SCC Online Cal 303) wherein Hon'ble High Court of Culcutta in para No. 8 has held as under :- Page 6 of 13 8. Section 254(2) of the 1961 Act empowers the Tribunal to amend its order passed under Section 254(1) to rectify any mistake apparent from the record either suo motu or on an application. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal 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 record, the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tribunal under Section 254(2) will be illegal and improper. In the present case, it is nowhere pointed out by the Tribunal that its original order needed amendment by reason of any mistake apparent from the record, liable to be rectified. The assessee wanted a review of the order in the garb of a rectification petition on certain grounds on which the Tribunal recalled its earlier order. The grounds on which the order is recalled merely show that the recall was not for any apparent mistake but for de novo exercise of judicial discretion on the basis of reappraisal of the facts of the case. The impugned order also makes it clear that the recall is for the purpose of re-evaluation or reconsideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Earlier, under Section 254(1), the Tribunal already heard the parties and considered the facts and circumstances and decided the issue one way or the other. It is not that any issue was left open or was not considered. The recall is occasioned by what the Tribunal afterwards thought to be its oversight of the importance of a particular factual aspect of the case. Such oversight cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under Section 254(2) of the Act. This might, at the worst, lead to perversity of the order for which the remedy available to the assessee is not Section 254(2) but a reference proceeding under Section 256. 7. Learned counsel for the Revenue opposes the submission and would submit that the circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 (Annexure P/5) was amended subsequently by the Central Government, Director of Central Board of Direct Tax vide circular dated 20th August, 2018 amending para 10 of the circular No. 3/2018 and following Clause 10(e) has been inserted :- 10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is not tax effect :- (e) Where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). Page 7 of 13 8. Thus, he would submit that assessment order for addition of additional undisclosed income of 45,00,000/- has been passed on the basis of information received from the CBI and the appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed on 17.01.2019, prior to passing of the judgment by the Tribunal, the amendment in the circular was already brought on record but the learned Tribunal while deciding the appeal could not take into consideration the amendment made in the Circular which is apparent mistake on the face of the record as such while allowing the Miscellaneous Application has not committed any illegality and would pray for dismissal of the present writ petition. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, {2007 (12) SCC 596}. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. From the above factual and legal submission raised by the parties the point to be determined by this Court is whether the learned Income Tax Tribunal committed illegality in allowing the Miscellaneous Application exercising its power conferred under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act? 11. To determine the said point it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act which reads as under :- Section 254(2) in The Income- Tax Act, 1995 (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub- section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assess­ Page 8 of 13 ment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the lia­ bility of the assessee, shall not be made under this. sub- section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 12. From bare perusal of the Section 254(2) it is quite vivid that if there is patent, manifest and self evident error has cropped up in the order passed by the Tribunal which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising jurisdiction under this Act. In the present facts the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 07.01.2019 while dismissing the appeal has taken into consideration the circular dated 11.07.2018 but has not taken into consideration when the said circular was amended on 20.07.2018 and subsequently Clause 10(e) has been inserted which clearly provides that if addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of G.S.T. Intelligence (DGGI). The adverse judgment relating to the said issues will be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect. The assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority dated 29.12.2006 clearly provides that the undisclosed income belonging to the assessee is as per the investigation of C.B.I. thus, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity in allowing the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. 13. The order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal allowing the application is in accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Page 9 of 13 Bombay vs M/s Vokart Brothers, Bombay {(1971) 2 SCC 526: 1971 (82) ITR 50 SC} as the mistake in the order is apparent in the face of the record, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 5 as under:- 5.....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 conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and ors. v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale(1) this Court while Spelling out the scope of the power of a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record-see Sidhamappa v.. Commissioner- of Income-tax, Bombay(2). The power of the officers mentioned in S. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to correct \"any mistake apparent from the record of the assessment of the first respondent..” 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax (CNTL), Ludhiana vs Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana {(1997) 8 SCC 502} has held in paragraph 3 as under :- 3. The Income Tax Officer thereafter entertained assessee's prayer for rectification of the order and allowed the assessee's claim in respect of matters like Coloured Albums, Export staff travelling expenses, Export sales commission, E.C.G.C., foreign dealers visiting expenses. Rectification under Section 154 can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, the point which was not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt as mistake apparent on the record. The dispute raised a mixed question of fact and law. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. vs Page 10 of 13 Bharat Bone MIll {(2007) 4 SCC 136} has held in paragraph 14 as under:- 14. This aspect of the matter has been considered in The Income 026 Tax Officer, Alwaye v. The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye [(1961) 3 SCR 236] wherein it was held that the provisions for rectification of \"mistakes apparent on the record\" cannot be equated with a power of a civil court to review its own order as envisaged under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating: \"The learned Judges of the High Court seem to have fallen into an error in equating the language and scope of s. 35 of the Act with that of O.47, r.1, Civil Procedure Code. The language of the two is different because according to s. 35 of the Act which provides for rectification of mistakes the power is given to the various income-tax authorities within four years from the date of any assessment passed by them to rectify any mistake \"apparent from the record\" and in the Civil Procedure Code the words are \"an error apparent on the face of the record\" and the two provisions do not mean the same thing.\" 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Rajkot vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. {(2008) 14 SCC 171: 2008 (305) ITR 227 SC} has held in paragraph 26, 27, 28 and 30 as under:- 26. In view of settled legal position, if the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue is correct that the Tribunal has exercised power of review, the order passed by the Tribunal must be set aside. But, if the Tribunal has merely rectified a mistake apparent from the record as submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, it was within the power of the Tribunal and no grievance can be made against exercise of such power. The main question, therefore, is: What is a `mistake apparent from the record'? Now, a similar expression `error apparent on the face of the record' came up for consideration before courts while exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. In T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, (1971) 2 SCC 526, this Court held that \"any mistake apparent from the record\" is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an \"error apparent on the face of the record\". It was, however, conceded in all leading cases that it is very difficult to define an \"error apparent on the face of the record\" precisely, scientifically and with Page 11 of 13 certainty. 27. In the leading case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104, the Constitution Bench of this Court quoted the observations of Chagla, C.J. in Batuk K. Vyas v. Surat Municipality, ILR 1953 Bom 191 : AIR 1953 Bom 133 that no error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it is not manifest or self-evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it. The Court admitted that though the said test might apply in majority of cases satisfactorily, it proceeded to comment that there might be cases in which it might not work inasmuch as an error of law might be considered by one Judge as apparent, patent and self- evident, but might not be so considered by another Judge. The Court, therefore, concluded that an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined exhaustively there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature and must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. The Court stated; \"It may therefore be taken as settled that a writ of certiorari could be issued to correct an error of law. But it is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error cease to be mere error, and become an error apparent on the face of the record? Learned Counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated\". (emphasis supplied) 28. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, (1960) 1 SCR 890, this Court referring to Batuk K. Vyas and Hari Vishnu Kamath stated as to what cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court observed; \"17....An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. As the above discussion of the rival contentions show the alleged error in the present case is far from self evident and if it can be established, it has to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments. We do not think such an error can be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the Page 12 of 13 powers of the superior court to issue such a writ\". 30. In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and self- evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long- drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no Court would permit it to remain on record. If the view accepted by the Court in the original judgment is one of the possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record. 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur, Mumbai vs RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. {(2011) 12 SCC 166} has held in paragraph 14 and 21 as under:- 14. Upon perusal of both the orders viz. earlier order dated 4th November, 2008 and order dated 23rd November, 2009 passed in pursuance of the rectification application, we are of the view that the CESTAT exceeded its powers given to it under the provisions of Section 35C(2) of the Act. This Court has already laid down law in the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s.Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50 to the effect that a \"mistake apparent from the record\" cannot be something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. It has been also held that a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be a mistake apparent from the record. If one looks at the subsequent order passed by the CESTAT in pursuance of the rectification application, it is very clear that the CESTAT re- appreciated the evidence and came to a different conclusion than the earlier one. …. 21. This Court has decided in several cases that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. In the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers (supra), this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious. As stated hereinabove, the Page 13 of 13 mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning. Similarly, this Court has decided in ITO v. Ashok Textiles {(1961) 41 ITR 732} that while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided. Moreover, incorrect application of law can also not be corrected. 18.From the above stated factual and legal position it is quite vivid that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in allowing the Miscellaneous Application vide its order dated 19.10.2023 as there is apparent on the face of the record which can very well be rectified by the Tribunal while exercising the power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power conferred under Section 254(2) of the Act is akin to the Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. while considering the application under Section 254(2) the learned Tribunal is not required to revisit the earlier order and go into the details of merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition. 19. The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kkd "