| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3529 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254(2)
In the absence of deficiencies pointed out by assessee in order passed by Tribunal, review of order in the guise of rectification could not be allowed.
|
Rectification - Under section 254(2) - No mistake apparent from record -
Assessee by way of application filed under section 254(2) sought for rectification of order passed by Tribunal. As per assessee, AO pointed out two different workings given by assessee and submitted that figures of anticipated loss were not reliable. During the course of hearing it was explained that there did not exist any difference between two workings but for the fact that presentation of WIP in one working was with 'profit declared in earlier years' whereas other income was without considering such profit Tribunal therefore, directed assessee to file profit chart and tax audit report of earlier years, which were submitted on the same day, however, decision had been arrived at by Tribunal against assessee without considering said explanation given in the rejoinder, holding that workings filed by assessee shared two different figures and hence not reliable. Held: Workings of total estimated loss on the project 'S.S. House' as made by assessee were not based on supporting computation and there were wide variations.Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that examination of working of total estimated loss on the project 'S.S. House' as worked out by assessee clearly indicated that it suffered from basic deficiencies and not a single error in the impugned order had been pointed out by assessee what assessee desired was a review of order passed by Tribunal which was not allowable and, assessee's application being devoid of merit, was dismissed.
Supported by:CIT v. Globe Transport Corpn. (1992) 195 ITR 311 (Raj) (HC) : 1992 TaxPub(DT) 0290 (Raj-HC), CIT v. Roop Narain Sardar Mal (2004) 267 ITR 601 (Raj) (HC) : 2004 TaxPub(DT) 0745 (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 (Orissa) (HC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 915 (Ori-HC), CIT v. Jagabandhu Roul (1984) 145 ITR 153 (Orissa) (HC) : 1984 TaxPub(DT) 0355 (Ori-HC), CIT & Anr. v. ITAT & Anr. (1992) 196 ITR 640 (Orissa) (HC) : 1992 TaxPub(DT) 0901 (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), T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) : 1971 TaxPub(DT) 0355 (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, Asstt. CIT v. Saurastra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2300 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its decision in 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.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|