2019 (6) TMI 671 - HC - Income Tax

Appellant granted review for delay condonation & error correction in Income Tax Act order

ASIT BARAN UTTHASANEE Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVIII, KOLKATA

The Court allowed the appellant's review application for condonation of delay and demonstrated an error apparent in the original order regarding additions ... Review petition - from order of the Tribunal that addition as assailed as ground no.4 and dealt with by the Tribunal in deleting substantial part of the addition, made under section 68. Hence, when by order dated 8th May, 2014 it was said that Tribunal had not answered the question extracted therein, being ground no.2 raised before the Tribunal, this came to be an error apparent since the addition under section 68 had been dealt with by the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Review is possible in exercise of jurisdiction under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We are satisfied that the assessee has made out good ground for review. Issues: Review application for condonation of delay and demonstration of error apparent in the original order dated 8th May, 2014 regarding additions made under sections 40A(3) and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay and Error Apparent: The appellant filed a review application along with a prayer for condonation of a 14-day delay, which was allowed by the Court. The appellant's advocate pointed out an error apparent in the original order dated 8th May, 2014, related to two additions made under sections 40A(3) and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had considered all grounds, including the additions of Rs. 14,98,573/- and Rs. 11,80,151/-. The advocate demonstrated that the Tribunal had already dealt with the addition of Rs. 11,80,151/- under section 68 in a previous order, contrary to the statement in the order dated 8th May, 2014. Citing a Division Bench's order in a similar case, the appellant's advocate argued for the review based on the principle of rectifying an error apparent in the order.2. Finality of Order under Section 260A: The respondent's advocate contended that the order passed under section 260A of the Act had attained finality and could not be modified through a review. However, the Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the error apparent in the original order dated 8th May, 2014. Consequently, the Court recalled the said order on review and listed the appeal before the regular Bench for further proceedings. The review application was disposed of in light of the Court's decision to recall the original order.This judgment highlights the importance of demonstrating an error apparent for a successful review application, even when dealing with final orders under specific sections of the Income Tax Act. The Court's decision to recall the original order showcases the judicial process of rectifying mistakes to ensure justice and fairness in legal proceedings.