Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1082 - HC - Income TaxScope of rectification of mistake - Held that:- From a reading of the Circular No. 68, dated November 17, 1971 issued by the Board relating to rectification of mistakes relied on by the assessee, it would be evident that the above circular would be relevant in a proceeding under section 154 only in relation to such issues, which have already been considered in the order and have subsequently been put to rest by the decision of the Supreme Court and, thereafter, it can be a ground for rectification. If, in the original order, there is no such issue, a new plea, based on a decision of the Supreme Court, cannot be raised in an application under section 154. In so far as the issue of surcharge is concerned, the same also was not a contentious issue raised by the assessee in the original order. Even otherwise, we are constrained to hold that though the assessee raised many issues before the High Court in the first round of appeal but restricted itself to only three substantial issues, which were decided against the assessee, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court. Further, an application under section 154 was also pursued simultaneously, which we find is akin to riding two horses at the same time. Unfortunately, the assessee having abandoned the plea before the High Court, the plea, which was raised in the section 154 application would clearly show that it is a new plea, which they want to pursue in terms of the provisions of section 154. Yet another factor, which goes against the assessee in the original order itself relates to the plea of income from lease equipment, which was treated as income from financial transaction. Even at the initial point of time, it was well within the appellant-assessee's knowledge that the said income, though not treated as an income from lease, was treated as income from finance transaction in respect of the same party. Therefore, the new plea taken by the appellant that consequent to disallowance of depreciation, the income should also be deleted, has no legs to stand. That fact was not the issue in the first round of appeal. At best it may be treated as a finding of the Assessing Officer, accepted by the assessee and abandoned in the course of appeal proceedings but it cannot be said that it is a mistake apparent on record warranting invocation of rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act. For the reasons abovesaid, this court holds that the provisions of section 154(1A) does not provide for rectification in the manner, which the appellant now pleads before this court. The case of the appellant-assessee does not fall within the scope of section 154(1A) warranting rectification as envisaged in the said provision. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law raised in TCA No. 536 of 2005 are answered against the appellant-assessee and in favour of the Department-respondent. It is trite law that a person is estopped in pursuing parallel proceedings before two authorities for the same relief. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in declining to interfere with its earlier order and dismissing the application, as there was no scope for rectifying any mistake, since there was no mistake apparent from the record, as envisaged under section 154(1A), in view of the findings rendered earlier. For the reasons aforesaid, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondent-Revenue and against the appellant-assessee.
|