TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g was on the basis of the valuation of the godown by the Superintending Engineer. Miscellaneous application - The assessee are not able to point out as to what exactly the error in the orders passed by the Tribunal in the appeals, which is apparent from the record - the Tribunal did not address the question pertaining to the very basis for reopening the assessment - the Court or a Tribunal is deemed to have taken every aspect that is placed before it, into account and granted the relief which it felt appropriate and gave a disposal to the matter before it, in a manner which it felt appropriate – the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against assessee. - ITTA Nos. 125 and 126 2002 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2014 - L. Narasimha Reddy An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Section 147 of the Act making an addition of ₹ 7,02,760/- each to the income of the appellants. The appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Range IV, Hyderabad aggrieved by the orders of re-assessment. The appeals were partly allowed through a common order dated 28-05-1999 reducing the figures on the orders of re-assessment to ₹ 3,32,420/- to each of the appellants. In the meanwhile, orders of rectification under Section 154 of the Act were passed by the assessing officer by adding a sum of ₹ 78,085/- each disallowing the depreciation of 10%. The appellants filed further appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short, the Tribunal) being ITA Nos. 178/v/1999 and 180/v/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals preferred by the appellants, there was no basis for filing the miscellaneous petitions. He submits that the jurisdiction under Section 254(2) can be exercised if only the error is so apparent and patent that it can be discerned without any effort and can be established without taking the help of any external material, and such an error did not exist in the instance case, at all. He contends that even if there is a possibility of different views being taken on the same facts, it cannot constitute the basis for passing an order of rectification and thereby exercising the power of appeal by the Tribunal on its own orders. He placed reliance on certain precedents. The factual background, in brief, for filing of miscellaneous petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s personal maintenance charges was granted. In case, the appellants were not satisfied with the nature of disposal given by the Tribunal, it was open to them to avail the further remedies. Section 254(2) confers power upon the Tribunal, which is comparable or akin, to the one of review. It is only in limited circumstances that a power of that nature can be exercised. The provision reads: 254(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub- section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer: Provided that an amendment w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need a long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no Court would permit it to remain on record. If the view accepted by the court in the original judgment is one of the possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record. Similarly, in Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
