Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ramesh Electric And Trading Co. on 6 November, 1992
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on
record. The grievance of the assessee as stated in M.A. is that the Tribunal
while upholding the order of AO with respect to addition of Rs.7.50 lacs has
observed that the requirement of Sec.68 of the Act were not proved by
assessee but has ignored the provisions of Sec.132(4A)(ii) of the Act. With
respect to the cost of renovation of four flats where the addition has been
restricted to Rs.50 lacs as against Rs.30 lacs estimated by Ld.CIT(A), it is the
contention of assessee that the contentions raised by assessee before AO and
Ld.CIT(A) have not been considered. It is a settled law that the power of
rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act 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.
Further, the Tribunal cannot in exercise of its power of rectification, look into
some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion
so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an
error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from the record itself. In
the present case, Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.30 lacs as against
Rs.1.50 crore made by the AO and before the Tribunal, assessee has also not
placed any material on record to substantiate the expenditure incurred by the
assessee towards the renovation cost of flats and it is also a fact that against
the additions upheld by Ld.CIT(A), assessee was not in appeal. We are thus
of the view that there is no mistake which is apparent from the record.
Further, the Tribunal has no power to review its own order as held by Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co.
(1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom.).