TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur order on the Tribunal’s first observation regarding the department having allowed a delay of nearly 3˝ years to lapse before filing application for rectification. If the department was within the limitation in applying for rectification and if otherwise had made out a good ground for rectification, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same. On the merits of the order of the Tribunal, we are broadly in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that its earlier order did not call for rectification. It is well settled that the power of rectification are limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be equated with review powers. In the first round, the Tribunal was apprised of the controversy, rival stands and the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d shown creditors for the purchase of goods at ₹ 7.68 crores (rounded off). The Assessing Officer analysed the purchases made by the assessee. He noted that the notice could not be served upon the creditors of the assessee from whom such purchases were made. He came to the conclusion that the creditors were bogus and they had merely issued purchase bills to the assessee. He held that the assessee had used his unaccounted income and made unexplained investment. The Assessing Officer accordingly made addition of ₹ 7.68 crores. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal on this ground upon which the assessee approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgement dated 21.03.2012 dealt with this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition was based on Section 69 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had made unexplained investment in the stock. The Tribunal should have therefore adjudicated such issue of addition under Section 69 of the Act taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal in the process of deleting the addition under section 69 of the Act has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. 4. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected such application making the following observations: 5. The Tribunal has passed order on 21.03.2012. It appears from the stamp available on copy of order of the Tribunal filed along with MA that this order was received on 21.05.2012. Probably it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeting reasons assigned by theld. CIT(A), then apparent error would have been committed by the Tribunal. According to the ld. Sr. DR in the present case also, the Tribunal without looking to reasons given by the ld. CIT(A) has set aside the issue to the file of the AO. On the other hand, the ld. AR relied upon the order of the Tribunal and contended that facts are quite distinguishable from the cases of M/s. Pankaj Diamonds rendered in MA No. 93/Ahd/2014 referred to by the ld. DR. 6. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious patent mistake, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empt at the end of the Revenue is to get the order of the Tribunal revived, hence, both Mas. are rejected. 5. Learned counsel Ms. Mauna Bhatt for the department submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into account the true import of the order of assessment and that of the Appellate Commissioner. Without examining the materials on record, the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee on an entirely unrelated issue. This was a clear error apparent on the record which called for rectification. 6. As noted, the Tribunal has rejected the rectification application of the department mainly on two grounds. First is that for nearly 3 years the department was inactive. The time for framing fresh assessment pursuant to the directions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o activate the rectification powers of the Tribunal. Such powers are etched with serious limitations and cannot be exercised by way of appellate or review powers. There was nothing in the application of the department to point out an error in the order of the Tribunal which could have been rectified under exercise of powers under section 254 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the department, however, submitted that the department may even consider challenging the original order of the Tribunal dated 21.03.2012. We are not called upon to decide the validity of such order nor can we predict the grounds for condonation of delay that the department may present before us in such appeal. We, therefore, refrain from making any comments on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
