Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 2120 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 254 - HELD THAT:- Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. [1989 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that the decision of the Tribunal has not to be scrutinized sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or whether some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been noticed by the Tribunal in its judgment. If the court, on a fair reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to state in its judgment specifically or in express words that it has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or has considered the totality of the facts, as if that were a magic formula; if the judgment of the Tribunal shows that it has, in fact, done so, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Since in the present case, we have already dealt with all the grounds raised by the assessee in the main appeal, therefore after considering the grounds raised in para no. 2(a) to (d), the same are mis-conceived and we are of the view that no glaring, obvious or patent mistake has been pointed out by the assessee which is apparent from the record, therefore we are inclined to dismiss these grounds i.e. 2(a) to (d) filed by the assessee in all misc. applications. It is not correct to say that the representative of assessee has not pressed the issues in relation to the Sec. 153A before Ld. CIT(A) - We find that since we have already given a categorical finding in para no. 32 of the order dated 09.11.17, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that assessee had not taken any such ground nor had raised the issue earlier and even Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press the matter further. Nevertheless, if this part of misc. application is allowed and the appeal of the assessee is restored qua this portion to be decided afresh, then in our view, no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the revenue, whereas if the contrary view is taken, then the rights of the assessee would be prejudiced. Be that as it may, considering the facts of the present case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in case, we restore ground No. 3(a) to (c) raised by the assessee to be heard on merits qua this portion, by regular bench. Therefore, we recall our finding in para no. 32 of the order dated 09.11.17 and restore this portion of the appeals to be decided afresh. Hence the present M.A’s qua recalling this portion of the order dated 09.11.17 stands partly allowed. Therefore, registry is directed to fix the present appeals before regular bench and issue notices to both the parties for deciding these grounds on merits.
|