TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the Tribunal shows that it has, in fact, done so, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Since in the present case, we have already dealt with all the grounds raised by the assessee in the main appeal, therefore after considering the grounds raised in para no. 2(a) to (d), the same are mis-conceived and we are of the view that no glaring, obvious or patent mistake has been pointed out by the assessee which is apparent from the record, therefore we are inclined to dismiss these grounds i.e. 2(a) to (d) filed by the assessee in all misc. applications. It is not correct to say that the representative of assessee has not pressed the issues in relation to the Sec. 153A before Ld. CIT(A) - We find that since we have already given a categorical finding in para no. 32 of the order dated 09.11.17, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that assessee had not taken any such ground nor had raised the issue earlier and even Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press the matter further. Nevertheless, if this part of misc. application is allowed and the appeal of the assessee is restored qua this portion to be decided afresh, then in our view, no pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission as well as verbal submissions, but the Hon ble Tribunal has incorrectly mentioned that assessee has not pressed the issue in relation to section 153A. Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that in view of the above mistakes, the order passed by the Hon ble Tribunal may be rectified. 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue submitted that the present misc applications filed by the assessee are mis-conceived and there are no errors apparent on the record, therefore the present misc. applications are not maintainable. Ld. DR further submitted that Hon ble Tribunal had decided all the grounds on merits after considering the facts of the present case and it has been categorically mentioned in para no. 32 of its order that the assessee had not taken any such ground before Ld. CIT(A) nor before Hon ble Tribunal and nothing was commented on this issue. It was further submitted by Ld. DR that as far as grounds taken in para no. 2(a) to (d) and 3(a) to (c) are concerned, they are mis-conceived and there are no errors at all, therefore the misc. applications filed by the assessee be dismissed with cost. 4. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There was no express power of review conferred on the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review did not extent to rehearing a case on the merits. Neither by invoking inherent power nor the principle of mistake of court not prejudicing a litigant nor by involving doctrine of incidental power, could the Tribunal reverse a decision on the merits. The Tribunal was not justified in recalling its previous Sri Moosa Abu Khaled finding restoring the addition, more so when an application for the same relief had been earlier dismissed. 8. Even otherwise the scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record under the circumstances, now we shall first deal with the question of the power of the Tribunal to recall an order in its entirety. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under s. 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned. Any order passed under s. 254(2) either allowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpress words that it has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or has considered the totality of the facts, as if that were a magic formula; if the judgment of the Tribunal shows that it has, in fact, done so, there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Since in the present case, we have already dealt with all the grounds raised by the assessee in the main appeal, therefore after considering the grounds raised in para no. 2(a) to (d), the same are mis-conceived and we are of the view that no glaring, obvious or patent mistake has been pointed out by the assessee which is apparent from the record, therefore we are inclined to dismiss these grounds i.e. 2(a) to (d) filed by the assessee in all misc. applications. 10. As far as ground No. 3(a) to (c) are concerned, the assessee has raised these grounds to support his contentions for recalling the orders passed by the Hon ble Tribunal, the same are reproduced below:- 3.(a) It is not correct to say that the representative of assessee has not pressed the issues in relation to the Sec. 153A before Ld. CIT(A). The appellants say and submit that it is evident from page no. 20, ground 4 un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int as stipulated in Sec 153 A was pressed abundantly at all stages in their written as well as verbal submissions. The appellants reiterate that this was pressed in many ways and at all levels by the appellants. After having gone through the grounds as mentioned above and submissions of both the parties and orders passed by us in the main appeal, we find that since we have already given a categorical finding in para no. 32 of the order dated 09.11.17, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that assessee had not taken any such ground nor had raised the issue earlier and even Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press the matter further. Nevertheless, if this part of misc. application is allowed and the appeal of the assessee is restored qua this portion to be decided afresh, then in our view, no prejudice would be caused to the interest of the revenue, whereas if the contrary view is taken, then the rights of the assessee would be prejudiced. Be that as it may, considering the facts of the present case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in case, we restore ground No. 3(a) to (c) raised by the assessee to be heard on merits qua this portion, by regula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
