TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter afresh on different grounds or reasoning. The present Miscellaneous Petition is premised on the material which is not part of the record of the case. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present Miscellaneous Petition is not maintainable as the assessee had failed to make out any mistake which is apparent from record which is capable of being rectified under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. - Misc.Petn.No.63/Bang/2016 (In ITA No.820/Bang/2014) - - - Dated:- 26-8-2016 - SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGAHVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Petitioner : Shri R.Chandrashekar, Advocate. For The Respondent : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl.CIT(DR) ORDER Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected under s. 254(2). An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the record means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need a long drawn out process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. The error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. 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 origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amend any order passed under sub-s. (1), if any mistake apparent from the records is brought to the notice of the Tribunal, is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 174 ITR 579 (Ker), CIT vs. R. Chelladurai (1979) 11 CTR (Mad) 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). 10. From the various judgments of the Supreme Court above referred to and other High Courts, it is clear that the Tribunal s power under s. 254(2) is not to review its earlier order but only to amend it with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. What can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
