Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. I have heard both the sides and gone through the application of the assessee and relevant provisions of law. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be relevant first to discuss the provisions relating to Section 254(2). A bare look at Section 254(2) of the Act makes it amply clear that a 'mistake apparent from the record' is rectifiablc. In order to attract the application of Section 254(2), a mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. 'Mistake' means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting, it is an error; a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. 'Apparent' means visible; capable of being seen; easily seen; obvious; plain. A mistake which can be rectified under Section 254(2) is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration. The language used in Section 254(2) is permissible where it is brought to the notice of the Tribunal that there is any mistake apparent from the record. Accordingly, the amendment of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order which is not permissible under the provisions of Section 254(2). Further, where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is no doubt true that a mistake capable of being rectified-under Section 254(2) is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. As observed by the Supreme Court in Master Construction Co. (P. ) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360, an error which is apparent on the face of the record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. A similar view was also expressed in Satyariarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 SC 137. It is to be noted that the language used in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is different from the language used in Section 254(2) of the Act. Power is given to various authorities to rectify any 'mistake apparent from the record' is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of 'an error apparent on the face of the record'. Mistake is an ordinary word, but in taxation laws, it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical or clerical error alone that comes within its purview. It comprehends errors which, after a judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate, are discerned. The word 'mistake' is inherently indefinite in scope, as what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. It is mostly subjective and the dividing line in border areas is thin and indiscernible. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. In order to attract the power to rectify under Section 254(2) it is not sufficient if there is merely a mistake in the orders sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on the debatable point of law or undisputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word 'apparent' is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is in capable of argument or debate. It is therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification.

19. As regards ground No. 5 I find that assessee seeks to get recalled the order of the Tribunal in order to have re-hearing of the issue which would involve long drawn process of reasoning and re-consideration of the entire issue which is legally not permissible. Support in this regard, can be taken from the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of 7". S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 which is a mother decision - held as under:

A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record.

Appellate Tribunal - Powers of Appellate Tribunal - Power to rectify its order - Tribunal holding that arbitration expenses riot allowable as a separate item as fixed percentage of award money taken as profit of contract business - Tribunal cannot allow arbitration expenses in rectification proceeding - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 254(2).

Yet another case, the Calcutta High Court in the case of CITv. Gokul Chand Agarwal[l993] 202 ITR 14J, has dealt with the same and opined as under:

Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Tribunal to amend its order passed under Section 254(1) to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record either suo motu or on an application. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to amend its order thus depends on whether or not there is a mistake apparent from the record. If, in its order, there is no mistake, which is patent and obvious on the basis of the record, the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Tribunal under Section 254(2) will be illegal and improper. An oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under Section 254(2). This might, at the worst, lead to perversity of the order for which the remedy available to the assessee is not under Section 254(2) but a reference proceeding under Section 256. The normal rule is that the remedy by way of review is a creature of the statute and, unless clothed with such power by the statute, no authority can exercise the power. Review proceedings imply proceedings where a party, as of right, can apply for reconsideration of the matter, already decided upon, after a fresh hearing on the merits of the controversy between the parties. Such remedy is certainly not provided by the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of proceedings before the Tribunal.

Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CITv. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1993] 203 ITR 497' has held as under:

Under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal may, 'with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record' amend any order passed by it under Sub-section (1) within the time prescribed therein. It is an accepted position that the appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the provisions of the Act. The only power which the Tribunal possesses is to rectify any mistake in its own order which is apparent from the record. This is merely a power of amending its order. The power of rectification under Section 254(2) can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on the record, although - it may be an error of judgment. The Tribunal cannot, in the exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion.