Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 747 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 254 - mistake apparent from the record - debatable issue - Department has not disturbed the figures of cost incurred by the assessee as well as net loss returned by the assessee over next four years and deciding an issue without putting it to the assessee and not considering facts available on record amounts to mistake apparent on the record - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, as mentioned above, the explanations given by the assessee have been duly considered. In the impugned order all the submissions and explanations by the assessee have been summarized and then a finding has been arrived at. The issue has been decided after considering the facts in entirety available on record. In fact full opportunity had been given to the assessee to make submissions. The arguments of the assessee during the course of hearing for the impugned assessment year have been examined at length and then the order has been passed. No fact has been lost sight of. No argument has been lost sight of. 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. See T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros.[1971 (8) TMI 3 - 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 as held in CIT v. Globe Transport Corpn. [1991 (1) TMI 23 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - MA rejected.
|