TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawn process of reasoning. Tribunal cannot exercise its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from record itself. 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. It has further held that in the grab of an application for rectification it is not permissible to the parties to reopen and reargue the whole matter. Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of P.T. Manuel and Sons [ 2021 (3) TMI 435 - KERALA HIGH CO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition without calling for the survey folder or any remand report from the AO and without appreciating the statement of the assessee recorded during the course of survey. Learned DR further submitted that there was enough material on record in the form of inventory of stock and Cash found during the course of survey which has escaped the notice of Hon ble Tribunal. Learned DR therefore submitted that Revenue is seeking to recall the order and re-adjudicating the matter on merits in the light of the material on record. 3. Learned AR on the other hand at the outset, submitted that the MA filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation and therefore at the outset, it should be dismissed. He submitted that the Tribunal has passed an order on 19. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from record itself. Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Company (1993) 203 ITR 497 has held that Tribunal has no power to review its own order. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ras Bihari Bansal v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and another, [2007] 293 ITR 365 (Delhi) has held that an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable u/s 254(2). It has further held that failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion, is not an error apparent on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
