Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited Versus DCIT – VI Kanpur

2015 (9) TMI 1288 - ITAT LUCKNOW

Rectification of mistake - claim for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(vii) - Held that:- The issue before the Tribunal was whether the provisions for bad and doubtful debts can be allowed under section 36(1)(vii) on the basis of approval of the Board of Directors of the assessee-company. The Tribunal has examined this issue in para 9 of its order and has given a categorical finding that the assessee has claimed deduction for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act; w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 36(1) of the Act, which deals with the issue of claim of provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the Scheduled Bank, non-Scheduled Bank or Corporation Bank, etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has not dealt with the issue in the light of assessee’s contentions. Since the Tribunal has taken a particular view in the light of assessee’s contentions, the findings of the Tribunal cannot be reviewed under the garb of rectification.

No merit in this Miscellaneous Appl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Applicant : Shri. Arvind Shukla, Advocate For The Respondent : Smt. Pinki Mahawar, D.R. ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: This Miscellaneous Application is preferred on behalf of the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dated 14.11.2014 seeking rectification in the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated the claim raised by the assessee for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called in short the Act"). 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the doubtful debts due from the consumer and the said dues to be credited in the account code No.79.460 under the head bad and doubtful debts provided for dues from consumer and debited in the account code No.79.410 bad debts written off dues from consumer. Copies of the group code No.79.460 and 79.410 were also filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not considered the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and mentioned in its order that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts cann .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ther contended that there is an error apparent in the order of the Tribunal, which calls for rectification. 3. The ld. D.R. has strongly opposed the Miscellaneous Application with the submission that the Tribunal has carefully examined the issue in the light of assessee s contentions. The Tribunal has consciously dealt with the issue in the light of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tors of the assessee-company. The Tribunal has examined this issue in para 9 of its order and has given a categorical finding that the assessee has claimed deduction for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act; whereas this section deals with only actual claim of deduction. Since the Tribunal has taken into account all the arguments of the assessee while adjudicating the issue, we find no error apparent in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given a categorical finding .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e s contentions. Since the Tribunal has taken a particular view in the light of assessee s contentions, the findings of the Tribunal cannot be reviewed under the garb of rectification. 5. The scope of provisions of section 254(2) is very limited and only those errors which are apparent or arithmetical can only be rectified. The scope of provisions of section 254(2) of the Act has been repeatedly examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts and it was held that the Tribunal can .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gh Court have held in specific terms that the Appellate Tribunal is creation of statutes and it can exercise only those powers which have been conferred upon it. The only power conferred on the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is to rectify any mistake apparent from record. The jurisdiction to review or modify orders passed by the authorities under the Act cannot be interfered with on the basis of supposed inherent rights. U/s 254(1) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Where two opinions are possible, then it cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record . 7. In the case of CIT Vs. Suman Tea and Plywood Industries (P) Ltd., 226 ITR 34 their Lordships of Calcutta High Court have expressed similar observations after holding that under section 254(2) of the Incometax Act, an order, which has been passed by the Tribunal reaches finality the moment the same is passed; cannot be touched thereafter. By section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal, howev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Tribunal to amend its order passed u/s 254(1) to rectify any mistake apparent from the record either suo moto or on an application. If in its order there is no mistake which is patent and obvious on the basis of the record, the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tribunal u/s 254(2) will be illegal and improper. An oversight of the fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under section 254(2). This might, at the worst, lead to perversity of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it as it thinks fit. Sub-section (2) of section 254 postulates that the Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-sec. (1) of section 254 with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. The power of the Tribunal conferred by sub-section (2) of section 254 for rectifying any mistake apparent from the record cannot be exercised by the Tribunal to recall any order passed by it under section 254(2). Further, reviewing and recalling an order is one thing and rectifying a mi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t error which can be rectified. 9. Their Lordships of the Apex court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers; 82 ITR 50 (SC) have held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent 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 record. Their Lordships have further held that if a statement of any .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ross examine by the assessee. This is not a matter in which the apparent error is involved but it is a matter more of merit and cannot be rectified within the scope of rectification. The powers of the Tribunal while making a rectification were again examined by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd.; 228 ITR 463 in which their Lordships have held that rectification can only be made when a glaring mistake of fact or law committed by the officer passing the order becomes appar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(2) does not authorize the Tribunal to review its order or to sit in appeal over its earlier order. If it is done, it would amount to an amendment of an earlier order with a view to rectify a mistake apparent from record, but it would be an order passed on reappraisal of the material facts and circumstances and on a fresh application of the legal position which is not permissible within the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. 10. In the case of Ms. Deeksha Suri Vs. ITAT; 232 ITR 395 their Lordsh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version