2014 (2) TMI 1411 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's Application for Rectification Dismissed for Lack of Merit

ITO, Ward-2 (1), Nashik Versus Mercedes Benz Educational Academy

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of an order due to factual errors, stating it lacked merit. The ... Rectification of mistake - application filled u/s 10(23C) filled to wrong authority - Grievance of the Revenue through this Miscellaneous Application is that the assessee has not filed any application in the office of the CCIT on 13- 03-2006 - HELD THAT:- From the various pages of the paper book, we find the assessee has filed the application in the prescribed form to the CCIT through the office of the CIT which has even been acknowledged by the ITO, Ward- 9(4), Akurdi, Pune vide his letter dated 23-06-2006. We find the Tribunal has already considered the application filed by the assessee. As per the note below Form No.56D the application form should be sent to the CCIT or DG through the CIT or DIT (Exemption) having jurisdiction over the assessee. Assessee has precisely done the same. The Tribunal after considering the application filed by the assessee through the office of the CIT has taken a view. Therefore, adjudicating the same on the basis of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue amounts to review of its own order by the Tribunal which is not permissible under the law. We therefore dismiss the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue being devoid of any merit. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. Issues:Rectification of order due to factual errors in the judgment.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal received a Miscellaneous Application from the Revenue requesting rectification of the order due to factual errors. The Revenue contended that there was no application for approval under section 10(23C) before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on 13.03.2006 as assumed in the Tribunal's order. The Revenue sought rectification based on this discrepancy. The Tribunal acknowledged the application filed by the assessee through the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was also acknowledged by the Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal found that the assessee had followed the correct procedure of filing the application through the appropriate channels. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's application was essentially a request for a review of its own order, which is impermissible under the law. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application, stating it lacked merit.The crux of the issue revolved around the correct interpretation of the application process under section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that no application was made before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on the specified date, leading to a factual error in the Tribunal's order. In contrast, the assessee argued that the application was indeed submitted through the correct channels, as evidenced by acknowledgments from the relevant tax authorities. The Tribunal analyzed the documentary evidence and noted that the assessee had followed the prescribed procedure by submitting the application through the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal emphasized that it had already considered the application in question and deemed the Revenue's request for rectification as a veiled attempt to review its own decision, which is not permissible under legal principles. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application, upholding its original judgment in favor of the assessee.In essence, the judgment delved into the procedural correctness of the application for approval under section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue's contention centered on the absence of an application before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on the specified date mentioned in the Tribunal's order. On the contrary, the assessee provided evidence of submitting the application through the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was duly acknowledged by the Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal scrutinized the relevant documents and concluded that the assessee had adhered to the prescribed procedure. Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application sought a review of its own decision, which contravenes legal principles. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application, affirming its original decision in favor of the assessee.