TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in observed that power to rectify the mistake however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. Further, we find that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, ITO Vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers [ 1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions . We further find that before Ld.CIT(A), it was assessee s contention that the deduction u/s 80P has been allowed to the assessee in earlier years. Considering the fact that assessee had been allowed deduction u/s 80P in earlier assessment years, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on u/s 80P of the Act claimed by the assessee and accepted the return of income. Thereafter, AO passed order u/s 154 of the Act vide order dt.30.09.2014 wherein he held that assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act and was only entitled to deduction of ₹ 50,000/- u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act and thus according to him there was excess deduction of ₹ 50,74,224/-. He accordingly passed order u/s 154 of the Act wherein he disallowed the claim of deduction of ₹ 50,74,224/- u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 154 of the Act, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.15.03.2017 (in appeal No.ABD/CIT(A)- 2/76/2016-17) dismissed the appeal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment application filed. Considering the fact that the issue in the present case is covered by various judicial pronouncements, we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. D.R. 4. The perusal of the grounds reveal that sole grievance of the assessee is its challenge about the rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act wherein the claim of assessee of deduction u/s 80P of the Act has been withdrawn which was originally allowed in the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. Before us, Ld. D.R. took us through the order of AO passed u/s 154 of the Act and submitted that assessee was not eligible for deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be rectified u/s 154 of the Act, we find that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.M.T.C. Ltd., reported in [2000] 246 ITR 725 (Del) has observed as under : A bare look at section 154 of the Act makes it clear that a mistake apparent from the record is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of section 154, the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. Mistake means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately ; to make an error in interpreting it is an error a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. Apparent means visible ; capable of being s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. A similar view was also expressed in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [1960] AIR 1960 SC 137. It is to be noted that the language used in Order 47, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC ), is different from the language used in section 154 of the Act. The power is given to various authorities to rectify any mistake apparent from record under section 154 of the Act. In the Civil Procedure Code, the words are an error apparent on the face of the record . The two provisions do not mean the same thing. The power of the Tribunal in section 154 to rectify any mistake apparent from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be rectified under section 154 of the Act. The questions proposed deal with conclusions on the facts giving rise to no question of law. 8. In the present case, with the passing of rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act will be substituted by the new order with denial of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act. This in our view is not permissible more so in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.M.T.C. Ltd., (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed that power to rectify the mistake however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. 9. Further, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
