Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Bidhi Chand Singhal, Rudrapur vs Department Of Income Tax on 4 November, 2010
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'A', NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
&
SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.A No. 351/Del/2011
[In ITA No. 3419/Del/2009]
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Income Tax Officer, vs. Shri Bidhi Chand Singhal,
Rudrapur. Hotel Tourist Empire,
Awas Vikas, Rudrapur.
PAN No. ATOPS4163H
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Aroop Kumar Singh, Sr. DR
Respondent by: Sudhanshu Srivastava, Adv.
ORDER
PER I.C. SUDHIR, J.M.
The only grievance of the Applicant/ Revenue is that the order dated 04/11/2010 of the Tribunal in the appeal is based on irrelevant consideration like grant of approval to assessee's hotel and non-grant of "Ecotourism" (status to any hotel) and without considering the relevant material like meaning and various parameters of "Ecotourism" as per various reputed dictionaries etc. the Tribunal has held that the hotel run by the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act. MA No. 351/Del/2011 2
2. Ld. DR reiterated the contents of the application to support his argument that there is mistake apparent from record in the order dated 04/11/2010 of the Tribunal which needs rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act.
3. The ld. AR on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has discussed the issue in para 6 of its order before coming to the conclusion that the hotel is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Thus, there is no mistake apparent from record in the order dated 04/11/2010 as it has been alleged by the applicant to attract the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act.
4. He placed reliance on several decisions including the following: -
• ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227;
• Poothundu Plantations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer & Ors. (1996) 221 ITR 557 (SC);
• CIT vs. Karam Chand Thapars & Brothers Pvt. Ltd., 176 ITR 535 (SC);
• Ras Bihari Bansal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2007) 293 ITR 365 (Del.).
5. After having gone through the order dated 04/11/2010 of the Tribunal. We find that the Tribunal while dealing with the issue regarding eligibility of the hotel run by the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IC, has already considered and discussed as to how the hotel is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act. MA No. 351/Del/2011 3
6. The grievance of the revenue in the present application is that the word "Ecotourism" defined by the Tribunal is based on irrelevant consideration and without considering the relevant material like meaning and various parameters of "Ecotourism" as per various reputed dictionaries etc. In our view, such grievance of the Revenue may be a good ground for questioning the finding of the Tribunal on the issue before the prescribed Appellate forum, but certainly, it cannot be treated as mistake apparent from record in the order dated 04/11/2010 of the Tribunal to attract rectification as provided u/s 254(2) of the Act. The grievance of the Revenue as discussed above is a debatable issue which cannot be a subject matter of rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act. The provisions laid down u/s 254(2) do not allow review of its order passed by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra) has been pleased to hold that a patent manifest and self evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of reasoning on points where MA No. 351/Del/2011 4 there may be conceivably two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness, held the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We thus, do not find substance in the contention of the applicant that there is mistake apparent on record in the order dated 04/11/2010 of the Tribunal.
7. In the result, the application is rejected.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23/11/2012 Sd/- Sd/-
(G.D. AGARWAL) (I.C. SUDHIR)
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 23/11/12
*Kavita
Copy to:
1. Applicant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
TRUE COPY
By Order
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR