Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 262 - AT - Income TaxSeeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal - the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of Rajlaxmi Trading Co. v. CIT 2001 (2) TMI 84 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] is not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case as the same is not concerned with stock-in-trade, but deals with capital assets valuation on dissolution of the firm - Held that:- As seen from the arguments of the assessee's counsel, the assessee wants to re-argue the issue before the Tribunal once again which is not permitted u/s. 254(2). The Tribunal while adjudicating the issue on earlier occasion considered the entire arguments of the assessee's case and given the finding, incidentally, not in favour of the assessee. As the issue is decided against the assessee, now the assessee finds that there is mistake apparent on record which is actually not so. It is well settled that statutory authority cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There is no express power of review conferred on this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review does not extent to re-hearing of the case on merit as decided in CIT v. Pearl Woolen Mills [2009 (11) TMI 48 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] The words used in Section in 254(2) are 'shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice'. Clearly, if there is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not indicate that the Tribunal can recall the entire order and pass a fresh decision. Thus the argument of the assessee's holds no merit and deserves to be rejected.
|