| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0325 (Pune-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254
Since scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record itself and not rectification in error of judgment, Therefore, Revenue was seeking review of the order of Tribunal, which was beyond the scope of powers as envisaged under section 254(2).
|
Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification of mistake under section 254 - Rectification of mistake apparent from record or rectification in error of judgment -
This Miscellaneous Application was filed by revenue under section 254(2) seeking reviewing of its own order of Tribunal. The contention of Revenue was that Tribunal had relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE, Kolkata-II [Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006] : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5186 (SC) which was with respect to Central Excise Act and Rules and ignoring the decision of Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi (2012) 20 taxman.com 733(SC) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 0471 (SC) which deals directly with Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Revenue pleaded that issue of not following the decision of Apex Court might be considered as a “mistake apparent from record” with the meaning of section 254(2). Held: There were series of decisions by Supreme Court as well as High Court expounding scope of exercising powers under section 254(2). It was not deemed necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification under section 254(2) could be exercised only when mistake, which was sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake. Scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record itself and not rectification in error of judgment. Therefore, Revenue was seeking review of the order of Tribunal, which was beyond the scope of powers as envisaged under section 254(2).
REFERRED : Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006] : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5186 (SC) Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2300 (SC) Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 146 (Guj) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 1165 (Guj-HC) CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom) : 1993 TaxPub(DT) 0847 (Bom-HC) Brijendra Nath Agarwal & Ors. v. Dy. CIT [ITA No.1666 And 1667/PUN/2015, Assessment Year : 2007-08, dt. 29-11-2018]
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|