Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 809 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 254 - Income from house property - AO rejected the annual letable value of a flat of assessee - Bench had taken into consideration the fact of unauthorized possession and concluded that therefore ALV can be considered on basis of municipal taxes - Assessee submits that it had filed a civil suit against the unauthorized occupants on 02.08.2013 for their eviction and necessary documentary evidences in this regard were placed but Bench has not taken this in consideration - HELD THAT:- This Bench is of the considered opinion that there is no substance in the present application for rectification. In Para no. 6, the submission of asssessee have been reproduced while in para no. 9, the Bench had given a finding based upon appreciation of matter on record that assessee could not prove the fact that any legal action has been taken by the assessee against alleged unauthorized possession. Assessee’s own case is that the civil suit was filed by the assessee company on 02.08.2013 after the Ld. CIT(A) decision in the case of assessee for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. Even otherwise the alleged error cannot be considered to be one apparent on record which can be rectified within the powers of Section 254(2) of the Act as such the power is only for rectification and not review. The Bench is of considered opinion that averment of applicant that the Bench has made contradictory findings or failed to appreciate relevant evidence in correct perspective, is not an apparent error on record which can be rectified but it may amount to review which is not permissible under 254(2). Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom Limited [2021 (12) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] held Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Consequently the applications in hand are dismissed.
|