TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under: It is most respectfully submitted that the supreme court observed in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 155 ITR 120 as follows: The view taken in that case in regard to the construction of s. 80M must be held to be erroneous and it must be corrected. To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of the judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from the wise and inspiring words of justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter (A.M.Y. at page 18): a judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible and, therefore, ever ready to learn: great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead: and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors . Again the supreme court in the case of S. Nagaraj observed as under that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. Tribunal is an institution of correction 24 SOT 48 (relevant extract) The learned counsel for the assessee, does not dispute that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.6 The sketch of the layout in which the property under consideration is constituted was examined. The layout was laid out in the year 2004 and it can be seen from it that proper roads have been laid providing access to each of the plots located in it. If the land was agricultural in nature, such a road approach to each of the plots situated in it would not have been conceived. Agriculture Lands are generally sold in patches and are certainly distinct from the characteristics exhibited in this layout. This description is an additional parameter to hold that the land under consideration is not agricultural in nature. Further, during the past many years, since 2004, being the year of purchase, the assessee has not offered any income out of agricultural operations from this property, which substantiates even at the time of purchase by the property by the assessee, it cannot be termed as agricultural. 5.7 To summarize, (a) Description of the property as appearing in the official website of the Registration Department of Government of Tamil Nadu as residential in nature. (b) Prohibitive cost of the property making agricultural operation unviable (c) Location of the propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected under section 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 original judgment is one of possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record. Section 254(2) specifically empowers the Tribunal to amend at any time within four years from the date of an order, any order passed by it under section 254(1) with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record either suo motu or on an application. In order to attract the application of section 254(2), the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The expression mistake a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the face of the record. Vide Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC), Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233; [1955] 1 SCR 1104, CIT v. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. (1999] 237 ITR 165 (SC), Deva Metal Powders P. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax [2007] 10 VST 751 (SC) ; [2008] 2 SCC439, CIT v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC), Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa. Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137; [1960] 1 SCR 890, Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, AIR 1964 SC: 1372, Batuk K. Viyas v. Surat Borough Municipality, ILR 1953 Born 191,Mrs. K. T. M. S. Umma Salma v.CIT [1983] 144 ITR 890 (Mad), Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. v. ITAT [1988]174 ITR 579 (Ker), CITv. R. Chelladurai [1979] 118 ITR 108 (Mad), State of Tamil Nadu v. Thakorebhai and Brothers[1983] 52 STC 104 (Mad); Jainarain Jeevraj v. CIT [l980] 121 ITR 358 (Raj), CIT v. Vardhman Spinning [1997] 226 ITR 296 (P H), Bata India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT(l996] 217 ITR 871 (Cal) and CIT v Prahlad Rai Todi [2001] 251 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
