INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 254(2)

Rectification - Under section 254(2) - Assessee pointed out no mistake apparent from record -

Assessee by way of miscellaneous applications (MAs), sought rectification of Order. passed by Tribunal. Assessee's case was that Tribunal in the impugned order inter alia truncated addition from 12.5% to 5% of supposed bogus purchases without directing AO to reduce from such quantum the sum of gross profit already disclosed and assessed to tax in connection with such bogus purchases. As per assessee overlooking of a substantive, alternative and consequential argument manifested in ground No. 4 of truncating the quantum of purported bogus purchase addition arrived at after applying yardstick of 5% to aggregate bogus purchases by already declared and assessed profits was a self evident error vulnerable to correction under section 254(2). Held: Tribunal in the impugned order had considered all the grounds of appeal including 4th one, while deciding the case. Explanations given by assessee had been duly considered. In the impugned order all the submissions and explanations by assessee had been summarized and then a finding was arrived at. The issue had been decided after considering the facts in entirety available on record. A perusal of the above facts clearly indicate that assessee had not pointed out even a single mistake apparent from record. A mistake apparent on record must be an obvious mistake, and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. What assessee desired was a review of Order passed by Tribunal which could not be permitted. Accordingly, MAs filed by assessee were dismissed.

Followed:CIT v. Globe Transport Corpn. (1992) 195 ITR 311 (Raj-HC) : 1992 TaxPub(DT) 290 (Raj-HC), CIT v. Roop Narain Sardar Mal (2004) 267 ITR 601 (Raj-HC) : 2004 TaxPub(DT) 745 (Raj-HC), CIT v. Devilal Soni (2004) 271 ITR 566 (Raj-HC) : 2004 TaxPub(DT) 935 (Raj-HC), Jainarain Jeevraj v. CIT (1980) 121 ITR 358 (Raj-HC) : 1980 TaxPub(DT) 727 (Raj-HC), Prajatantra Prachar Samiti v. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 160 (Ori-HC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 915 (Ori-HC), CIT v. Jagabandhu Roul (1984) 145 ITR 153 (Ori-HC) : 1984 TaxPub(DT) 355 (Ori-HC), CIT & Anr. v. ITAT & Anr. (1992) 196 ITR 640 (Ori-HC) : 1992 TaxPub(DT) 901 (Ori-HC), Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. ITAT & Ors. (1999) 240 ITR 579 (Cal-HC) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 1375 (Cal-HC), CIT v. Suman Tea & Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 34 (Cal-HC) : 1997 TaxPub(DT) 1128 (Cal-HC), ITO v. ITAT & Anr. (1998) 229 ITR 651 (Pat.-HC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 223 (Pat-HC), CIT & Anr. v. ITAT & Anr. (1994) 206 ITR 126 (AP-HC) : 1994 TaxPub(DT) 263 (AP-HC) and Asstt. CIT v. C.N. Ananthram (2004) 266 ITR 470 (Karn-HC) : 2004 TaxPub(DT) 1211 (Karn-HC). Supported by:T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) : 1971 TaxPub(DT) 355 (SC), Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1047, Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1976) Tax LR 1921, 1927 (SC) and CCE v. ASCU Ltd., (2003) 9 SCC 230, 232 : 2003 TaxPub(EX) 150 (SC).

REFERRED : Asstt. CIT v. Saurastra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2300 (SC), Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji (1971) 3 SCC 844, Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (1955) 1 SCR 1104, Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (1960) 1 SCR 890 and Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors. (1964) 5 SCR 64A.

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT