Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 721 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 254 - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice or not? - HELD THAT:- Issue of penalty has elaborately been considered by the Hon’ble Bench and penalty levied on income declared in the return of income as well as penalty levied on additions made by AO over and above the returned income has separately been considered by the Hon’ble bench. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there is no mistake apparent from record as envisaged by the provisions of Section 254(2) and what the revenue is seeking is nothing more than a review of the order which is impermissible. The said conclusion find support from the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Earnest Exports Ltd. [2010 (2) TMI 261 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it was observed that power u/s 254(2) is confined to rectification of mistake apparent on record and 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. Further Sec. 254(2) is not a mandate to unsettle decisions taken after due reflection. These provisions empower the Tribunal to correct the mistakes, errors and omissions apparent on the face and the said provision is not an avenue to revive a proceeding by recourse to a distinguished argument nor does it contemplate a fresh look at a decision recorded on merits. A mistake apparent from record is one for which no elaborate argument is required. It must be glaring, obvious or selfevidenced mistake. If it is a mistake which requires to be establish by complicated process of investigation, argument or proof, it cannot be held to be mistake apparent from record. A debatable issue does not come with the scope of provisions of Sec. 254(2). Respectfully following the ratio of these decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the pleas urged by the revenue are beyond the scope of Sec. 254(2) and therefore, we are not inclined to accept the same. Resultantly, the application stand rejected. The plea urged in all the other applications are, more or less, similar.
|