INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 254(2)

Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification under section 254(2) - No apparent mistake - Tribunal duly considered all relevant facts and material available on record

CIT (A) denied assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(37) on the ground that land was not used for agricultural purpose. Further, Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT (A). Aggrieved, assessee filed miscellaneous application under section 254(2). He alleged that while confirming denial of the claim of exemption under section 10(37), the Tribunal had mistakenly given certain findings, which were mistake apparent on record and it was requested to pass appropriate order under section 254(2) to rectify the said mistakes. Held: It was found that Tribunal duly considered all relevant facts and material available on record including Khasra Girdawari and affidavits of caretakers of land in question and thereafter arrived at a view that no agricultural activities were carried out on the impugned land and the land was lying vacant for 4 years. In such circumstances, if the contention of the assessee would be accepted, the same would result in re-appreciation of material on record and review of the decision already taken by the Tribunal, which was not permissible within the narrow confine of section 254(2). Hence, the miscellaneous application filed by assessee was dismissed.

Distinguished:ITO v. G.S. Lekha (2019) 180 DTR 249 (Coch) (TM) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7803 (Coch-Trib)

REFERRED : Lilo Ramchandani v. DCIT [ITA No. 698/JP/2019, dated 4-11-2019] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7588 (Jp-Trib) Rajendra Bastimal Chordiya v. ITO (2019) 56 CCH 0482 (Pune) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 4885 (Pune-Trib)

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

OR Try Reload the Page