Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)M/S. Karan & Co. vs Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal on 20 July, 2001
" It is evident from the above that the power available to the Tribunal
is not in the nature of a review as is understood in legal parlance. The
power is limited to correction of mistakes apparent from the record.
What is significant is that the section envisages amendment of the
original order of the Tribunal and not a total substitution thereof.
That position is fairly well-settled by two decisions of this court in
Deeksha Suri v. ITAT, [1998] 232 ITR 395 (Karan & Co v. Income-
Tax Appellate Tribunal., [2002] 253 ITR 131. This court has in both
these decisions held that the foundation for the exercise of the
jurisdiction lies in the rectification of a mistake apparent from the
record which object is ensued by amending the order passed by the
Tribunal. The said power does not, however, contemplate a rehearing
of the appeal for a fresh disposal. Doing so would obliterate the
distinction between the power to rectify mistakes and the power to
review the order made by the Tribunal. The following passage from
the decision of this court in Karan and Co., [2002] 253 ITR 131
elucidates the difference between review and rectification of an order
made by the Tribunal (page 136):
Cit vs Itat And Ors. on 2 June, 2006
assessee shows that it had a reasonable cause for being absent at a
time when the appeal was taken up and was decided ex parte. This
position was highlighted by one of us (Justice Arijit Pasayat, Chief
Justice) in CIT v. ITAT, [1992] 196 ITR 640 (Orissa). Judged in the
above background the order passed by the Tribunal is indefensible."
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors. on 3 August, 2012
6. Even otherwise the alleged error cannot be considered to be one apparent on
record which can be rectified within the powers of Section 254(2) of the Act as
such the power is only for rectification and not review. The Bench is of considered
opinion that averment of applicant that the Bench has made contradictory findings
or failed to appreciate relevant evidence in correct perspective, is not an apparent
error on record which can be rectified but it may amount to review which is not
permissible under 254(2) of the Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the
judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner Of Income-Tax v.
Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal And Other, dated Jun 2, 2006; 2006
TAXMAN DELHI 155 378 where in para 7 it held;
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
Similar view was
also expressed in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirmule, AIR 1960 SC 137. It is to be noted that the
language used in Order XI, VII, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (in short "the CPC") is different from the language
used in Section 254(2) of the Act. Power is given to various
authorities to rectify and mistake "apparent from record". In the Civil
Procedure Code, the Words are "an error apparent on the face of the
record". The two provisions do not mean the same thing. The power
of Tribunal in Section 254(2) 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".
T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971
(see T.S Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers, (1971) 82
ITR 50 (SC) 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 a debatable
point of law or disputed 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 incapable
of argument or debate. It 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."
Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs State Of Orissa And Another on 16 December, 1965
process of investigation, argument or proof. As observed by the Apex
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 of law.
Baljeet Jolly vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 August, 2000
7. Also reference can be made to judgement in Baljeet Jolly v. Commissioner
Of Income-Tax.; dated Aug 2, 2000 ; 2001 ITR DELHI 250 113 where it is
held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court;
1