Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 800 - ITAT PUNERectification u/s 254 - Assessee contends that Ground No.3 is alternate to Ground Nos.1 & 2. If the first two grounds i.e. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are being allowed, Ground Nos. 3 becomes infructuous/academic - HELD THAT:- We don't find any mistake apparent from record necessitating our jurisdiction as envisaged u/s.254(2) What the assessee contends is actually asking review of the entire decision already taken on facts by the Tribunal. Whether the Assessing Officer is giving appeal effect or not, there are other legal recourses available with the assessee. That however, the jurisdiction as envisaged u/s.254(2) of the Act does not entitle such remedy as claimed by the assessee before us. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company [1992 (11) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record itself and not rectification in error of judgment. We are of considered view that in the guise of rectification, the assessee is seeking review of the order of Tribunal, which is beyond the scope of powers as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed.
|