TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowed during the Assessment Year 2005-06 on one ground that the process of threading of both ends on a rod could not be termed as manufacture. However, during the year under consideration, deduction u/s 80 IC was disallowed to the assessee on two grounds:- 1) The process of threading on both ends of a rod could not be termed as manufacture. 2) It was a case of splitting up of existing business and the assessee had violated the conditions laid down u/s 80 IC (4)(i) of the Income Tax Act. 3. As per the applicant, the said issue of splitting up of business already in existence, which led to the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC, was not considered by the Tribunal and would have a bearing on the issue of allowability of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was raised in any appeal filed before the Tribunal or by any application u/s Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the Revenue or even in the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. The Ld. AR pleaded that the Tribunal decided the appeal on the basis of order of CIT(A) who in turn had decided the issue following the order in the preceding year. The second aspect of splitting up was not addressed by the CIT(A). The assessee was in appeal against the order of CIT(A) and the Tribunal decided the present appeal following it earlier order in the case of assessee itself. The contention of the learned AR was that a new plea is being raised by way of this Misc. Petition which was never raised while arguing the appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 254 of the I.T.Act. The power of rectification under Section 254 (2) of the Act is limited to an error which is apparent on the face of the record but where error is far from selfevident, rectifying the same ceases to be an apparent error. The plain meaning of the word apparent is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie that it is incapable of argument or debate. The mistake to be discovered by a long drawn process of argument, proof or investigation is not a mistake apparent from record. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co., (203 ITR 497) had held as under: It is an accepted position that the Appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and reargue the matter by making an application under Section 254 (2) of the I.T.Act. We find support from the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Perfetti Van Melle India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 595 (Del.), wherein vide order dated 08.05.2007, their Lordships have held that the mere fact that the Tribunal has not allowed a deduction, even if the conclusion is wrong, that will be no ground for moving an application under Section 254 (2). Further, in garb of application for rectification, the assessee cannot be allowed to be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of this section. The assessee in the garb of application for rectification has sought to reopen and reargue the whole ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view thereof, the contention of the assessee on this issue raised in the Miscellaneous Application is rejected. 11. We find that the Hon ble Madya Pradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Chhabra Ginning Udyog(supra) has held as under:- Allowing the appeal, that a power to rectify the mistake in the order is confined to only those errors which are apparent from the record of the case. The powers under section 254(2) cannot be exercised as a review court or as an appellate court so as to virtually change the earlier decision unless a grave error on the facts or at law from the records is apparent. A well reasoned decision which had gone in favour of the Revenue in a regularly constituted appeal could not be upturned by recourse to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
