The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0371 (Sur-Trib)


Section 254(2)

Tribunal could not sit again to review or to examine its own conclusion, as it was not permitted by provisions of section 254(2).

Rectification - Under section 254(2) - No mistake apparent - Assessee seeking Tribunal to review its conclusion

Assessee had claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10). Tribunal held that deduction under section 80-IB was to be calculated on the gains derived for such undertaking and same could not exceed profit derived from said undertaking. Assessee by way of miscellaneous applications filed under section 254(2) claimed that Tribunal had considered decision of Asstt. CIT v. Goldmine Shares & Stock Finance (P) Ltd. cited by assessee during the hearing and also considered entire facts of assessee's case, but reached on the wrong conclusion which was against the assessee. Held: It was not the case of assessee that decision cited by assessee was not considered by the Tribunal, Tribunal had considered decision in Asstt. CIT v. Goldmine Shares and Stock Finance (P) Ltd. cited by assessee during conclusion/decision. This conclusion was the ratio of decision of Tribunal which could not be rectified by Tribunal because to rectify the order of Tribunal in this scenario would tantamount to review of order of Tribunal, which is against the sprit of section 254(2). The said conclusion/decision (ratio) might be reviewed or rectified by the High Court or Supreme Court.

Held:Asstt. CIT v. Goldmine Shares And Finance (P.) Limited. (2008) 113 ITD 209 (Ahd-Trib) (SB] : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1976 (Ahd-Trib).

REFERRED : Prem Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [MA No. 130/Del/2012 for assessment year.2002-03] Order, dated 12-12-2012.

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. : 2010-11



'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : /