2012 (8) TMI 1193 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rejects petitions challenging CIT(A)'s order, bars second rectification request under Income Tax Act

The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition seeking restoration of the previous petition challenging the CIT(A)'s order, as well as the second ... Maintainability of second rectification application before the Tribunal - rectification of ITAT order under section 254(2) - mistake apparent on the record - re-appreciation of evidence not permissible in a rectification petition - finality of Tribunal's order decided on meritsFinality of Tribunal's order decided on merits - mistake apparent on the record - re-appreciation of evidence not permissible in a rectification petition - Whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal and the first Miscellaneous Petition for rectification could be interfered with or shown to contain a mistake apparent on the record. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that both the appeal and the subsequent Miscellaneous Petition for rectification were considered and decided on merits after examining the grounds and the authorities relied upon by the assessee. The assessee failed to demonstrate any mistake apparent on the face of the record. The petition styled as one for rectification in fact sought re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in proceedings under the guise of rectification. Consequently, there was no ground to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal and the first rectification petition on merits. [Paras 1]The Tribunal's orders dismissing the appeal and the first Miscellaneous Petition for rectification are affirmed; no mistake apparent on record and re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible in a rectification petition.Maintainability of second rectification application before the Tribunal - rectification of ITAT order under section 254(2) - Whether a second Miscellaneous Petition for rectification (or restoration) of the Tribunal's order is maintainable before the Tribunal. - HELD THAT: - Relying on the decisions in CIT Vs. ITAT and Dr. S. Paneerselvam Vs. CIT , the Tribunal applied the principle that an order rejecting an application for rectification under the provision governing rectification is not itself an order amenable to a further rectification application under the same provision. The Madras High Court, following the Orissa High Court, held that a second application for rectification is not maintainable. Applying that reasoning, the Tribunal found the present second Miscellaneous Petition for rectification/restoration to be not maintainable and dismissed it on that ground. [Paras 2]The second Miscellaneous Petition for rectification/restoration is not maintainable and is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed its earlier orders dismissing the appeal and the first rectification petition on merits for lack of any mistake apparent on record and improper re-appreciation of evidence, and dismissed the second petition for rectification/restoration as not maintainable. The assessee's Miscellaneous Petition seeking restoration of M.P. No. 47/Mds/2012 was dismissed. The Tribunal had earlier decided the appeal on merits and thereafter dismissed the first rectification petition after considering the grounds and authorities relied upon. The present petition sought a second rectification/restoration; the assessee failed to demonstrate any 'mistake apparent from record' and effectively sought re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible. Independently, the second rectification/restoration is held not maintainable: relying on authoritative precedent, 'an order rejecting the application for rectification under section 254(2) is not an order passed under section 254(1) and it cannot be rectified under section 254(2).' The Madras High Court similarly held that a 'second application for rectification is not maintainable under the provisions of section 254.' Consequently the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed as not maintainable.