TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new plea. We also find no merit in the plea of the assessee for its inapplicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act to the FY 2013-14 concerning AY 2014-15. The aforesaid provision is applicable from AY 2014-15 and would thus apply to transactions concerning FY 2013-14 as intended by the legislature. Tribunal has dealt with the ground raised in the light of facts placed before it. Thus, the error in conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, if any, as alleged, cannot fall within the sweep of expression apparent mistake governing section 254(2) of the Act. The prayer of rectification is thus not sustainable. Admissibility of additional evidences - Tribunal has applied its mind and taken a conscious view on the admissibility of addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidences filed before the Tribunal regarding the land being rural land ought to have been admitted having regard to the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported at (1998) 229 ITR 383(SC). 4. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, defended the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the points raised in the miscellaneous application has been duly addressed by the Tribunal and hence, the alleged errors are not in the nature of apparent mistake. The Tribunal is powerless to review its decision on same set of facts in the guise of rectification of error contemplated under s.254(2) of the Act. The Ld.DR accordingly submitted that prayer of the assessee is not amenable to s.254(2) of the Act. 5. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lower authorities on factual aspects, we decline to entertain the aforesaid new plea. We also find no merit in the plea of the assessee for its inapplicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act to the FY 2013-14 concerning AY 2014-15. The aforesaid provision is applicable from AY 2014-15 and would thus apply to transactions concerning FY 2013-14 as intended by the legislature. 5.3. Apparently, the Tribunal has dealt with the ground raised in the light of facts placed before it. Thus, the error in conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, if any, as alleged, cannot fall within the sweep of expression apparent mistake governing section 254(2) of the Act. The prayer of rectification is thus not sustainable. 5.4. The second objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
