TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the assessee is not agreeable to the reasoning of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal, he has a proper remedy of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court under Section 260A of the Act. However, that cannot be a reason to seek redressal under Section 254(2) of the Act, which is clearly envisaged for rectifying mistake apparent on the face of record. The so-called mistake pointed out by the assessee certainly cannot be said to be mistake apparent on face of record as envisaged under Section 254(2). By filing the present application, the assessee, in our view, is trying to challenge the reasoning of Tribunal in the appeal order in the guise of rectification. It is not acceptable. Only because the decision of the Tribunal is not to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and materials found that assessee had not made any investment in purchase of a new property within the due date of filing of return as prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Since, in terms of Section 54(2) of the Act, assessee had not invested/deposited the unutilised capital gains in Capital Gains Account Scheme, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 54(1) of the Act. The aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer was also upheld by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, assessee again reiterated the stand taken before the departmental authorities by submitting that since the unutilised capital gain was invested in purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m.) as well as some other judicial precedents, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that since the assessee had not invested any amount out of the unutilised capital gain in purchasing a new residential house before the actual date of filing of return of income in terms of Section 54(2) of the Act, assessee should have deposited the unutilised capital gain in Capital Gains Account Scheme. As the assessee had not complied with the above said condition, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the departmental authorities. 3. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion as well as on a reading of the appeal order passed by the Tribunal, it becomes absolutely clear that the Tribunal has decided the issue after considering the submissions made by the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions of the ld. AR as well as the contents of the Miscellaneous Application, prima facie, it appears that the assessee is not satisfied with the reasoning of the Tribunal. It further appears, the assessee wanted the order to be passed in a particular manner. Since, the order was not passed according to his expectation, therefore, he has come up with the plea that the appeal order suffers from mistake apparent on the face of record. If the assessee is not agreeable to the reasoning of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal, he has a proper remedy of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court under Section 260A of the Act. However, that cannot be a reason to seek redressal under Section 254(2) of the Act, which is clearly envisaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
