TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were cross appeals by the Revenue and the assessee and the tribunal had made following concluding adjudication: 9. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that in this case the assessee is a company. Earlier it was partner in the firm Pranik Landmark Associates. It had retired from the firm with effect from 01.04.2009 by way of a retirement deed. During the year under consideration the assessee company received a sum of Rs. 10,48,51,708/- over and above what was due to it from the partnership firm upon retirement as reflected by the assessee company's accounts. The assessee during this year on 06.11.2009 has passed an entry claiming that it was due to the earstwhile partnership firm upon the firm's revaluation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase clearly indicate that the assessee had retired from the partnership firm and the retirement deed was duly executed. There was no mention of any remaining claim of the assessee in the assets of the firm or revaluation reserve. Hence, the assessee had relinquished its right into the properties of the partnership firm in lieu of outstanding as on that date of retirement. As it is evident, the said revaluation is claimed to have taken place in the year prior to the year under consideration in 2007-08. The assessee company had not taken credit of that revaluation reserve in its accounts of that period. On query from the bench in this regard, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that assessee company had taken a conscious decision no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that in the ITAT's order there is non - consideration of change of name (post amalgamation of the assessee) which was intimated by the letter filed by the assessee. In this regard, we note that the above matter only requires corrigendum which we are passing here, bringing on record a change of name of the assessee post amalgamation by way of a corrigendum of even date. 5. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that it is an incorrect factual finding by the tribunal that the assessee has received over and above the amounts due to him from the partnership deed. In this regard, he has submitted that the Tribunal has been erroneous in appreciating the paper b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und no. 2 raised by the assessee and there is no clear conclusion on taxability of receipts. That Ground no. 2 raised by the department on section 115JB was wrongly decided by not referring to the details referred in the ld. CIT(A)'s order. That there was complete disregard of the judicial precedence cited by the assessee. That the detailed reasoning of the ld. CIT(A) was not considered. That the ITAT has not considered the letter filed for withdrawal of ground nos. 1 & 3 by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 8. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) submitted that the assessee is seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible under the Act. 9. Upon carefully consideration,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has referred to the following from the Hon'ble Apex Court decision: "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 be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record." 11. Thereafter after considering the various facts and decisions, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has expounded as under: In our view, 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 and patent mi....