TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Application of the assessee, as no error apparent in the order of the Tribunal is pointed out. The ld. counsel for the assessee has tried to dispute the findings of the Tribunal and seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act and we accordingly reject the Miscellaneous Application. - Decided against assessee. - M.A. No.27/LKW/2015 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ewed under the garb of rectification. 4. Having carefully examined the order of the Tribunal vis- -vis the Miscellaneous Application, we find that the issue before the Tribunal was whether the provisions for bad and doubtful debts can be allowed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act 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; 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 that the provisions for bad and doubtful debts cannot be claimed under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, as it deals with actual claim of deduction. The Tribunal has also taken cognizance of the provisions of clause (vii)(a) of section 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons 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, however, has been authorized to rectify mistakes in its orders, which are apparent on the face of the records. The expression mistake apparent on the record means a mistake either clerical or grammatical or arithmetical or of like nature, which can be detected without there being any necessity to re-argue the matter or to re-appraise the fact as appearing from the records. In another case CIT Vs. Golal Chand Agarwal; 202 ITR 14 their Lordships of Calcutta High Court have also held that section 254(2) 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). Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the affidavit of a particular person and has acted upon the statement of the same person which was recorded by the ITO without being permitted to cross 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 apparent from record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, a point which was not examined on facts or in law cannot be dealt with as mistake apparent from record. In the case of ITO Vs. ITAT; 229 ITR 651 their Lordships of Patna High Court have also expressed a similar observation after holding that section 254(2) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) with a view to rectifying a mistake from record. However, section 254(2) does not authorize the Tribunal to review it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
