| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3350 (Jp-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254
Where judgment of High Court was binding on this Tribunal and decision of High Court was not relied upon or cited by the Revenue at the time of hearing of the appeal, non considering of that decision cannot be a ground for rectification of mistake in the order of the Tribunal when Tribunal had followed the various other decisions of High Courts, therefore, there was no merit in Miscellaneous Application of Revenue.
|
Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification of mistake - Non-consideration of the judgment of High Court - Jurisdiction of Tribunal under section 254(2)
By way of Miscellaneous Application, Revenue sought to recall order of Tribunal. Case of the Revenue was that Tribunal had decided the appeal of assessee by following decisions of High Court as well as other decisions on the point of validity of initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) proceedings however, there was a judgment of Madras High Court which was in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, non-considering of the judgment of the said High Court amounts to a mistake apparent on record requires rectification. Held: Contention of Revenue was not accepted simply due to reason that while deciding this issue Tribunal had taken a firm view which was supported by various judgments including the judgment of High Court in case of Seveta Construction Co. [[DB Income Tax Appeal No. 534/2008, dt. 6-12-2016]]. The judgment of High Court was binding on this Tribunal and decision of High Court was not relied upon or cited by Revenue at the time of hearing of appeal. Hence, the decision which was not cited by reviewed or relied upon by Revenue at the time of hearing cannot be a ground for mistake in the order of the Tribunal when Tribunal had followed the various other decisions of High Courts. Therefore, there was no merit in the Miscellaneous Application of Revenue.
Relied:Sundaram Finance Limited (Formerly Sundaram Finance Services Ltd.) v. ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2565 (Mad-HC) Sheveta Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [DB Income Tax Appeal No. 534/2008, dt. 6-12-2016] CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2018) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karn) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0953 (Karn-HC) CIT & Ors. v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Ors. (2014) 359 ITR 565 (Karn) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 0202 (Karn-HC) Ras Bihari Bansal Prop. Bansal & Co. v. CIT (2007) 170 taxman 31 (Del) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1203 (Del-HC) CIT v. Vardhman Spinning (1997) 93 Taxman 453 (P&H) : 1997 TaxPub(DT) 1000 (P&H-HC) Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 259 Taxman 220 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6831 (SC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |