M. Pochamma v. Dy. CIT - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 1395 (Hyd-Trib) : (2013) 051 (II) ITCL 0268 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Appeal (Tribunal)Powers Power to recall its own order--Assessee filed application seeking rectification of Tribunal's order under section 254(2) on the ground that Tribunal has not recorded correct finding regarding the land transferred by her. Also, the grievance was due to non-mentioning of case laws relied upon by the Tribunal in the order. *Held:* Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Tribunal to rectify a mistake. However, the scope and ambit of the aforesaid provision is very limited. The power conferred on the Tribunal for rectification has to be exercised in terms of the provision. The rectification, as envisaged in the aforesaid provision, is confined to mistakes which are apparent from record and are patent and obvious, and are not such which could be established only by long-drawn arguments and debate or by a process of investigation and research. The scope of section 254(2) cannot be enlarged so as to empower the Tribunal to review its own order. If two views are possible on a point of law and one of the alternatives is adopted in its previous order, it cannot be held that there is a mistake apparent from record on account of non-adoption of the other possible view. Unless there are manifest errors which are obvious clear and self-evident, the Tribunal cannot recall its previous order, in an attempt to re-write the order. The Tribunal, being a creature of the statute, has to act within the limits laid down by the statute. It has no inherent power of review. Hence, such power cannot be assumed in the guise of rectification envisaged under section 254(2) for recalling its own order and hearing it afresh. The Tribunal passed the order, after marshalling all the facts considering the submissions made before it and applying its mind to the decisions cited before it. There is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal of the nature as envisaged under section 254(2). Permitting the assessee to raise the same issues over again in the guise of rectification will amount to recalling the appeal order in its entirety and re-hearing it afresh, which is not within the scope and ambit of section 254(2). Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 254(2) In the ITAT, Hyderabad A Bench Chandra Poojari, A.M. & Saktijit Dey, J.M. M. Pochamma v. Dy. CIT ITA Nos. 1099-1109 (Hyd) of 2010 A.Y. 2007-08 11 January, 2013 Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 254(2) *Decision:* Against the assessee. Applicant by : D. Ranga Rao Respondent by : M. H. Naik ORDER SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 1395 (Hyd-Trib) : (2013) 051 (II) ITCL 0268

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Appeal (Tribunal)Powers Power to recall its own order--Assessee filed application seeking rectification of Tribunal's order under section 254(2) on the ground that Tribunal has not recorded correct finding regarding the land transferred by her. Also, the grievance was due to non-mentioning of case laws relied upon by the Tribunal in the order. Held: Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Tribunal to rectify a mistake. However, the scope and ambit of the aforesaid provision is very limited. The power conferred on the Tribunal for rectification has to be exercised in terms of the provision. The rectification, as envisaged in the aforesaid provision, is confined to mistakes which are apparent from record and are patent and obvious, and are not such which could be established only by long-drawn arguments and debate or by a process of investigation and research. The scope of section 254(2) cannot be enlarged so as to empower the Tribunal to review its own order. If two views are possible on a point of law and one of the alternatives is adopted in its previous order, it cannot be held that there is a mistake apparent from record on account of non-adoption of the other possible view. Unless there are manifest errors which are obvious clear and self-evident, the Tribunal cannot recall its previous order, in an attempt to re-write the order. The Tribunal, being a creature of the statute, has to act within the limits laid down by the statute. It has no inherent power of review. Hence, such power cannot be assumed in the guise of rectification envisaged under section 254(2) for recalling its own order and hearing it afresh. The Tribunal passed the order, after marshalling all the facts considering the submissions made before it and applying its mind to the decisions cited before it. There is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal of the nature as envisaged under section 254(2). Permitting the assessee to raise the same issues over again in the guise of rectification will amount to recalling the appeal order in its entirety and re-hearing it afresh, which is not within the scope and ambit of section 254(2).

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 254(2)

In the ITAT, Hyderabad A Bench

Chandra Poojari, A.M. & Saktijit Dey, J.M.

M. Pochamma v. Dy. CIT

ITA Nos. 1099-1109 (Hyd) of 2010

A.Y. 2007-08

11 January, 2013

Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 254(2)

Decision: Against the assessee.

Applicant by : D. Ranga Rao

Respondent by : M. H. Naik

ORDER