TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed/established law that the Tribunal is not bound to discuss each and every argument made at the time of hearing of the appeal and the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal may be an error of judgment but cannot be considered to be an error apparent on record rectifiable u/s. 254(2) of the Act. The powers of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) is very limited and the Tribunal has limited jurisdiction of rectification in its order if an error is crept therein which is apparent from the face of the record. Reappreciation of the evidence placed before the Tribunal during the course of hearing is not permissible to re-adjudicate the issue afresh under the garb of rectification. The power to review is not available to the Tribunal. If we accept this peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D of the Income Tax Rules were notified with effect from 24.03.2008 and are therefore applicable with effect from A.Y. 08-09 and not to earlier years and therefore not to the year under appeal. He further submitted that the Hon ble High Court in Assessee s own case for A.Y. 06-07 has held that Rule 8D is applicable from A.Y 08-09 and has no retrospective effect. He also placed on record the copy of the decision of Hon ble High Court in Assessee s own case in Special Civil Application No. 15726 of 2010 order dated 28.02.2011. He therefore submitted that disallowance u/s. 14A made by the A.O and as confirmed by Tribunal thus goes against the aforesaid decision of Hon ble High Court in Assessee s own case and thus there is an apparent error in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion being A.Y. 2007-08, the disallowance u/s. 14A has been made by following the provisions of Rule 8D. We further find that Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Assessee s own case is A.Y. 2006-07 while deciding the Special Civil Application No. 15726 of 2010, has held that provisions of Rule 8D are applicable from A.Y. 2008-09 and is not retrospective. Considering the aforesaid fact, we are of the view that there is an apparent mistake in the order of Tribunal and therefore recall the order in ITA No. 2369/Ahd/2010 for a limited purpose to decide the issue with respect to disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The Registry is directed to fix the hearing the appeal in due course. 5. With respect to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under s. 254(2). Similarly, failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. The mere fact that the Tribunal has not allowed a deduction, even if the conclusion is wrong, that will be no ground for moving an application under s. 254(2). Further, in garb of application for rectification, the assessee cannot be allowed to be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of this section. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and following the decision of Hon'ble High Court cited hereinabove, we are of the view that since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
