Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (12) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve that "there was a direct nexus between the money withdrawn from the firm on which interest was paid and the investment in purchase of plot at Gurgaon" has been taken note of. (ii) In para 6 the Tribunal has given a finding that there was a direct nexus between the withdrawals from the firm on which interest was paid and the investment in the afore stated plot of land, which is erroneous for the reason that the withdrawal was made from three different firms and the facts have not been properly appreciated to that extent. (iii) The decisions cited by the learned counsel have been taken note of in para 4 of the aforestated Tribunal order and in para 6 it has been observed that "with due respect the decisions cited by the learned couns .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd". 5. As per the aforestated decision of the Hon'ble apex Court "if prejudice had resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error, then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake". It is observed that in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal had admittedly not considered inadvertently the earlier order of the "Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited before it and the Tribunal allowed the rectification application of the assessee stating that "the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had escaped its attention". However, in the case of the assessee, this Bench in its order dated has duly considere .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... parties raised at the time of hearing of the appeal and had reversed its earlier finding in the appellate order dt. 26th Nov., 2001, that the appeal was not competent and void ab initio. The Tribunal thus reheard the appeal before it and had taken a different view on the merits of the contentions of the parties in the order dt. 16th Jan., 2004, which was outside the scope and purview of s. 254(2). Its order was not valid. 6. Thus, it is very clear from above that the Tribunal in exercise of its powers to rectify the mistakes in its order cannot rehear the appeal. 6.1 In the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom), it has been held that it is an accepted position that the Tribunal does not have any power t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. Such 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 possible view, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record." 6.3 It is very clear that the Tribunal can rectify only a mista .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (All) 598 : (2007) 288 ITR 297 (All); (ii) The correctness of the conclusion of facts could not be subject-matter of an application for rectification, as held in CIT vs. ITAT Anr. (1992) 102 CTR (Ori) 281 : (1992) 196 ITR 640 (Ori); (iii) The mistake must be apparent from the record, as held in CIT vs. ITAT Anr. (1994) 118 CTR (AP) 187 : (1994) 206 ITR 126 (AP); (iv) Manifest error which is clear and obvious can only be rectified and change of opinion would not entitle Tribunal to review its earlier order, as held in the following decisions: (a) Asstt. CIT vs. Dr. Ved Prakash (1994) 122 CTR (AP) 362 : (1994) 209 ITR 448 (AP); (b) CIT vs. ITAT Anr. (1994) 210 ITR 397 (Ori); (c) Dharamchand Surana vs. ITO (1997) 59 TTJ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates