TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/Hyd/2012 in ITA 1106/Hyd/2010 /Co. No. 83/Hyd/2010 For the Petitioner : D. Ranga Rao For the Respondent : M. H. Naik ORDER Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) By these applications under S.254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the applicant-assessees have prayed for rectification/recall of the order of this Tribunal dated 20.7.2012 on the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee, being ITA Nos.1099 to 1109/Hyd/2010 and the Cross-Objections of the assessee therein, being C.O. No. 76 to 86/Hyd/1012, for the assessment year 2007-08, on the ground that certain mistakes apparent from record have crept into the same. Reiterating the averments made in the present application, the learned Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal has not even made a mention of this decision in the impugned order, which therefore, needs to be rectified/recalled. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal should have followed the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Smt.Sanjeeda Begum (2006)154 Taxman 346(All) instead of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarifabibi Mohd. Ibrahim (supra). To sum up, it is submitted that the order of the Tribunal dated 20.7.2012 warrants rectification/recall for the following reasons- (a) The conclusion that the developed property has been sold is not in order (b) No direction as to proper computation of capital gain has been given. (c) A return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly considered and findings have been given based on the material apparent from record. We do not find any material omission or mistake on the part of the Tribunal in recording the contentions of learned Authorised Representative for the assessees before it. It is neither expected nor practicable to expect an appellate authority to record all the contentions of the parties verbatim in the order of the Tribunal, and it would be suffice and meet the ends of justice, if totality of the appellate order reflects the consideration of all the contentions urged by the parties before it. By the contentions urged in the present applications, we find that the assessee-applicants are merely disputing the findings of the Tribunal and seeking a review o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ved Prakash (209 ITR 448)(AP), wherein it has been held as follows If two views are possible on a point of law, and one of the alternatives is accepted by the Tribunal, it cannot be held that the mistake is apparent from the record, unless there are manifest errors which are obvious, clear and selfevident, the Tribunal cannot recall its previous order in an attempt to rewrite the order. A change of opinion by the Tribunal consisting of the same members shall not justify rectification, nor can fresh thinking brought in by new Members of the Tribunal justify rewriting of the order under the guise of rectification. The only fact that had the second set of Membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is apparent from the record. Unless there are manifest errors which are obvious, clear and self- evident, the Tribunal cannot recall its previous order in an attempt to rewrite the order. At the cost of repetition, we would like to reiterate that on going through the order passed by the Tribunal, we are convinced that the Tribunal passed the order, after marshalling all the facts considering the submissions made before it and applying its mind to the decisions cited before it. We do not find any mistake in the order of the Tribunal of the nature as envisaged under S.254(2) of the Act. Permitting the assessee to raise the same issues over again in the guise of rectification will amount to recalling the appeal order in its entirety and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
