Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2013 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - mistake apparent on the record - HELD THAT:- Assessee has filed miscellaneous application running into 17 pages. Apart from the long and detailed miscellaneous application, Ld.A.R. has also argued the Miscellaneous Application for more than 3 days, has taken us through the various decisions cited in the Miscellaneous Applications which itself shows that the alleged mistakes for which rectification is sought by the assessee through the present Miscellaneous Applications are not visible and patent but the alleged mistakes are such for which elaborate reasoning or enquiry is essential. In the light of the various decisions cited hereinabove, the alleged mistakes as pointed out in the MA cannot be considered to be “mistake apparent from record” as contemplated u/s 254(2) of the Act. In the present case, we also find that while deciding the appeal of the Assessee, the coordinate Bench of tribunal has considered the submissions made by the Assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Earnest Exports Ltd [2010 (2) TMI 261 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that “the power under section 254(2) is confined to a rectification of a mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal must confine itself within those parameters. Section 254(2) is not a carte blanche for the Tribunal to change its own view by substituting a view which it believes should have been taken in the first instance. Section 254(2) is not a mandate to unsettle decisions taken after due reflection. The provision empowers the Tribunal to correct mistakes, errors and omissions apparent on the face. The section is not an avenue to revive a proceeding by recourse to a disingenuous argument nor does it contemplate a fresh look at a decision recorded on the merits, however appealing an alternate view may seem. Unless a sense of restraint is observed, judicial discipline would be the casualty. That is not what Parliament envisaged.” (emphasis supplied by us). What the assessee intends to seek in the present case is the review of the order, which according to us is not permissible under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. If we accept the present petition of the Assessee, then it will tantamount to review of the order of the Tribunal and the law is well settled that power to review is beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act. - Decided against assessee.
|