Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 231 - AT - Income TaxRectification u/s 254 - income from sale of shares have been treated as ‘capital gains’ OR ‘business income’ - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the above facts clearly indicate that the applicant has not pointed out any mistake apparent from the record. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] , Master Construction Co. P. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, [1965 (12) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT] , Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [1976 (7) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT] . In fact, not a single error in the impugned order has been pointed out by the applicant. What the applicant wants is a review of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is a creature of the statute. The Tribunal cannot review its own decision unless it is permitted to do so by the statute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [1970 (3) TMI 163 - SUPREME COURT] that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. It is a settled law that the Tribunal has no power to review its order in the garb of section 254(2) of the Act
|