Tribunal denies rectification request, upholds Commissioner's revision under section 263.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of its order, emphasizing that it lacked the power to review its own decision. The Tribunal held that the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation allowed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous, supporting the Commissioner of Income Tax's revision under section 263. The Tribunal clarified that rectification under section 254(2) is limited to correcting apparent mistakes and does not permit a review or re-hearing of the case. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and denied the requested rectification.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of Tribunal's Order
2. Set-off of Unabsorbed Depreciation
3. Power of Tribunal to Review its Own Order

Summary:

1. Rectification of Tribunal's Order:
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 16/11/2012. The assessee argued that the Tribunal's order contained mistakes apparent from the record, particularly regarding the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation. The Tribunal, however, found that the arguments presented by the assessee were misconceived and that the Tribunal had no power to review its own order. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory authority cannot exercise the power of review unless expressly conferred, and the scope of review does not extend to re-hearing the case on merit.

2. Set-off of Unabsorbed Depreciation:
The assessee disputed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) holding that the Assessing Officer's (AO) action to allow the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation for assessment years 1990-97 and 1998-99 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee argued that the AO's view was in accordance with a CBDT Circular and a Gujarat High Court judgment. The Tribunal, however, held that the AO had mechanically accepted the assessee's claim without proper enquiry or verification, making the order erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the CIT's revision of the AO's order u/s 263 was justified.

3. Power of Tribunal to Review its Own Order:
The Tribunal reiterated that it does not have the express power to review its own orders. The scope of rectification u/s 254(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to recalling the entire order and passing a fresh decision. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including CIT v. Pearl Woolen Mills and CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd., to support its position that rectification is not equivalent to a review or recall of the order. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's application was an attempt to re-argue the case, which is beyond the scope of s. 254(2).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the MA filed by the assessee, finding no merit in the arguments presented and no mistake apparent on the record that warranted rectification of the Tribunal's order.

---