Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (10) TMI 546

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of Jansampark(2015 (3) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT), relied upon by the DR has no relevance to decide the issue before us. The matter deals with section 68 of the Act and does not deal with scope of section 254(2)of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that application filed by the AO deserves to be rejected. - MA No. 135/Mum/2016, ITA No. 7628/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2016 - Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member Appellant by : Shri Rajan Vora Respondent by : Shri K. L. Kanak ORDER Per Rajendra, A. M. Vide its application, dated 16. 06. 2016, the Assessing Officer(AO) has stated that there were some mistakes in the order of the Tribunal dated 21. 10. 2015, that same wer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssue pointed out by the AO. He referred to the case of Jan Sampark Advertising Marketing (P) Ltd. (375ITR373). The Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the assessee had submitted all the relevant documents before AO and had met all his allegations, that the Tribunal had advanced all the arguments advanced by the Department, that in the name of rectification application AO wanted review the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that after considering the facts of the case the Tribunal had decided the issue on merits. The DR had emphasized that Tribunal had held that transaction needed verification and investigation. We find that the observation of the Tribunal was in context of on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hon'ble High Court. Miscellaneous application cannot be used for challenging an order passed by the Tribunal just to review its earlier order. The Tribunal had found that the period of claiming the loss had lapsed and the assessee had informed the AO that it would not set off the loss against any future income to be earned under the head capital gains . Thus the Tribunal had taken an informed decision. Secondly, the appeal before the Tribunal was filed by the assessee against order of the FAA and it was supposed to decide the points raised before it in the appeal. Here, it would be useful to refer to the case of Dholadhar Investment P. Ltd. ( 362 ITR 111), of the Hon ble Delhi High Court. The Hon ble Court has held as under: The duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ographical mistakes, non-adjudication of ground of appeal or non-consideration of a judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court or jurisdic - tional High Court having direct bearing on the case. Hon ble Delhi High Court has, in the matter of Geofin Investment (P. ) Ltd. , described the concept of mistake apparent from record as under: The power is circumscribed and limited. There should be a mistake which is apparent before the power can be exercised. This is a mandatory pre-condition. The Tribunal in its order referred to the controversy in question relating to the disallowance made on account of shortterm capital loss and long-term capital loss. The entire issue was examined on the merits including the judgments relied upon by the assessee. Af .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mited power to rectify mistake u/s. 254(2) of the Act. In the case before us, the AO has not pointed out any arithmetical mistake in the order of the Tribunal nor has he proved that legal position taken by the Tribunal has altered because of subsequent judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional high court or the Hon ble Apex court. The Tribunal has decided the issue after considering all the facts and provisions of law. In our opinion, no mistake is apparent, in the impugned order of the Tribunal. We would also like to mention that the case of Jansampark(supra), relied upon by the DR has no relevance to decide the issue before us. The matter deals with section 68 of the Act and does not deal with scope of section 254(2)of the Act. Therefore, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates