GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 747 - ITAT BANGALORE

2016 (2) TMI 747 - ITAT BANGALORE - TMI - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)- rectification of mistake - whether Tribunal had failed to adjudicate the ground that the show cause notice was issued, before levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, in a mechanical manner without application of mind - Held that:- On mere perusal of the grounds of appeal raised in the memo of appeal shows that no such ground was raised before this Tribunal nor the counsel for the assessee could demonstrate before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his Tribunal had considered this decision and rendered a finding at para-5.2 of the order. There is no whisper either in the order of the CIT(A) or in the order of the Tribunal that the assessee had advanced this plea. No new plea can be raised by invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal is bound to adjudicate only on the grounds which are specifically raised and urged by the assessee to which specific attention of the Tribunal was drawn.

.....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AMA RAO, AM : This Miscellaneous Petition was filed by the assessee seeking rectification of mistake in the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No.859/Bang/2012 dated 13-01-2015 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. This Tribunal vide impugned order had confirmed the levy of penalty under the provisions of sec.271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee through this present petition submits that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal had not considered the submissions of the assessee that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned Sr.DR relied on the orders of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the grounds of appeal and adjudicated the matter and submitted that the appeal cannot be re-argued under the provisions of 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue raised in the present petition is that the Tribunal had failed to adjudicate the ground that the show cause notice was issued, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inning Factory(supra) was referred by the counsel during the course of hearing of the appeal, but it was only in support of the proposition that in the absence of mala fide on the part of the assessee, no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. This Tribunal had considered this decision and rendered a finding at para-5.2 of the order. There is no whisper either in the order of the CIT(A) or in the order of the Tribunal that the assessee had advanced this plea. No new plea can be .....

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 case of Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs DCIT and another (320 ITR 12) wherein it was held at para.12 & 13 as under: 12. The scope and amplitude of sec. 254(2) and the analogous provision s. 154 of the Act have been considered by catena of decisions of the apex Court and other High Courts. The uniform opinion of the Courts of superior jurisdiction is that a patent, manifest and selfevident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rectness. 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 possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record. Sec. 254(2) specifically empowers the Tribunal to amend at any time within four years from the date of an order, any order passed by it under s. 254(1) with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the recor .....

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 Act. Sec. 254(2) does not confer power on the Tribunal to review its earlier order. Under the garb of rectification of mistake it is not possible for a party to take further chance of re-arguing the appeal already decided. What can be rectified under s. 254(2) is a mistake which is apparent and patent. The mistake has to be such for which no elaborate reasons or enquiry is necessary. Where two opinions are possible then it cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the record. When prejudice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent power of the Tribunal. If prejudice is resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal s mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error, then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake. Rectification can be made only when a glaring mistake of fact or law committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record. The rectification is not possible if the question is .....

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 error apparent on the face of the record. Vide Asstt. CIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 90 : (2008) 12 DTR (SC) 346 : (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 425 : (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC), Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque (1955) 1 SCR 1104, CIT vs. Keshri Metal (P) Ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 531 : (1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC), Deva Metal Power (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 2008 (2) SCC 439, CIT vs. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. (1997) 142 CTR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d) 157 : (1979) 118 ITR 108 (Mad), State of Tamil Nadu vs. Thakorebhai & Bros. (1983) 52 STC 104 (Mad), Jainarain Jeevraj vs. CIT (1979) 13 CTR (Raj) 342 : (1980) 121 ITR 358, 363 (Raj), CIT vs. Vardhman Spinning (1997) 139 CTR (P&H) 322 : (1997) 226 ITR 296, 302 (P&H), Bata India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 871 (Cal) and CIT vs. Prahlad Rai Todi (2001) 171 CTR (Gau) 537 : (2001) 251 ITR 833 (Gau). 13. From the various judgments of the Supreme Court above referred to and other Hi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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