TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistake cannot be construed to be apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to invoke Section 154 of the Act, while making the assessment order dated 27.06.2001. Therefore, the order by the Tribunal upholding the same has to be set aside. - Tax Case Appeal No. 489 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2016 - M. Jaichandren And S. Vimala, JJ. For the Appellant : Dr. Anita Sumanth For the Respondent : Mr. T R Senthilkumar JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. Vimala, J. ) The appellant is a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee filed the return of income, declaring an income of ₹ 4,51,06,850/-, in respect of the Assessment Year 1998-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has filed this appeal, raising various substantial questions of law, out of which, the appeal has been admitted only on the following two substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order dated 27.6.2001 passed under Section 154 of the Act by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1998/99? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not noting that Section 154 of the Act would have no application to the instant case? 6. The main issue raised in this appeal is the applicability of Section 154 of the Act, in the light of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must be obvious, clear, and patent. 8. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not a Court having plenary powers, but, the Tribunal which cannot function outside or de hors the Act. Once the Judgment or order is pronouced, the Tribunal or Adjudicating Authority becomes functus officio. Such judgments or orders cannot be changed or varied or modified. An exception is provided under Section 154 of the Act provided the conditions mentioned supra remain satisifed. Therefore, it is for this Court to find out whether there was any mistake and if so, whether that mistake was apparent on the face of the record and whether the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking Section 154 of the Act? 9. The learned counsel for the assessee / appellant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and therefore, the Assessing Officer is right in invoking Section 154 of the Act to rectify the mistake, which was apparent on the face of the record. In other words, it is contended that the mistake is patent, self-evident and apparent and therefore, it is a case to invoke Section 154 of the Act and rightly the Assessing Officer has done so. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Assessee has submitted that, when the issue is an debetable issue, and that when a debatable issue is invoked, the mistake cannot be construed to be apparent mistake and in support of the proposition, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) (2009) 319 ITR 208 (SC) (Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT (SC)):- .... that the right to recify mistakes under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to go into the true scope of the provisions of the Act in a rectification proceeding under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: the officer was wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of assessments of the firm; (ii) that, however, the High Court was not justified in going into the question whether the original assessments were in accordance with the law. 10. From the reported decisions, it is clear that no error can be said to be apprent on the face of the record, when it is not manifest or self-evident, but requires an examination or argument to establish it. Admittedly, the issue involved pertains to permissibility of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, by excluding 90% of the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|