2014 (1) TMI 750 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses applicants' requests for order rectification, emphasizes no review allowed under Act

The Tribunal rejected the applicants' requests for rectification/recall of its order, emphasizing that the applicants were essentially seeking a review of ... Recall of order u/s 254 of the Act - Rectification of mistake apparent from record - Held that:- The assessees are merely criticizing and disputing the findings of the Tribunal in relation to the nature of land - The grievance of the assessees is also on account of non-mentioning of certain citations relied upon and also certain contentions advanced by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessees before the Tribunal - A careful reading of the order of the Tribunal, clearly reveals that all the contentions of the parties before it have been duly considered and findings have been given based on the material apparent from record – there was no material omission or mistake on the part of the Tribunal in recording the contentions of learned Authorised Representative for the assessees before it – Relying upon Smt. Poonam Kumari. Versus Income-Tax Officer. [1996 (3) TMI 156 - ITAT ALLAHABAD] - the applicants are merely disputing the findings of the Tribunal and seeking a review of the order of the Tribunal, which is not possible under S.254(2) of the Act – Decided against Assessee. Issues:Rectification/recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.7.2012 on appeals of Revenue and cross-objections of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08.Analysis:The applicants sought rectification/recall of the Tribunal's order, claiming mistakes apparent from the record. The applicants argued that the Tribunal should express its finding on the applicability of a specific judgment to the case at hand. They emphasized the importance of the nature of the land in taxation matters. The applicants also contended that the Tribunal should modify its order based on guidelines from a High Court judgment. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative opposed these contentions, stating that there was no apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order and that the applicants were essentially seeking a review of the decision. The Tribunal examined the submissions and found that the applicants were disputing the Tribunal's findings, seeking a review, which was not permissible under the relevant Act.The Tribunal noted that the applicants' grievances mainly revolved around the nature of the land and the citation of certain references in the Tribunal's order. It emphasized that the Tribunal had duly considered all contentions and made findings based on the record. The Tribunal clarified that it was not required to record every party's contentions verbatim but to ensure that the order reflected the consideration of all arguments. The Tribunal highlighted that the applicants had previously filed similar applications seeking rectification, which were already rejected after detailed consideration. Therefore, filing subsequent applications for the same relief was not permissible, as demonstrated by a precedent decision. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the present applications, emphasizing that the applicants were essentially seeking a review of the Tribunal's decisions, which could not be entertained repeatedly.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicants' present applications and rejected them accordingly. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicants' attempts to seek a review of the Tribunal's decisions through rectification/recall applications were not permissible under the law. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in court on 10.06.2013.