Tribunal affirms business income classification, rejects res judicata, upholds power limits.

KetanPravinchandraKamdar Versus The DCIT, Central Circle-7 (3), Mumbai.

KetanPravinchandraKamdar Versus The DCIT, Central Circle-7 (3), Mumbai. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of case laws and propositions laid down therein.
2. Classification of repetitive transactions as business income.
3. Doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record.
4. Rule of uniformity in treatment and consistency.
5. Tribunal's power to review its own order under section 254(2) of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Consideration of Case Laws and Propositions:
The applicant contended that the ITAT did not consider the propositions laid down in the case laws cited by the assessee while adjudicating ground No. 1 for AY 2006-07. Specifically, the ITAT concluded that the assessee's transactions were systematic and organized without detailing the characteristics of such a manner. For AY 2008-09, similar contentions were raised regarding the systematic and organized nature of transactions in five scripts.

2. Classification of Repetitive Transactions as Business Income:
For AY 2006-07, the ITAT found that the assessee engaged in repetitive transactions in Bharati Shipyard and Sah Petro scripts, which were deemed systematic and organized, thus classified as business income. Similarly, for AY 2008-09, repetitive transactions in Great Offshore Ltd., Orbitco, JSW Steel Ltd., Sesa Goa Ltd., and K.S. Oils Ltd. were classified as business income. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order treating the respective amounts as business income but directed the AO to allow related business expenses.

3. Doctrine of Res Judicata or Estoppel by Record:
The Tribunal referred to the decisions in New Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT and T.M.M. Sankaralinga Nadar & Bros., stating that the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO’s decisions. The Tribunal noted that a decision by income tax authorities in one year could be departed from in a subsequent year.

4. Rule of Uniformity in Treatment and Consistency:
The applicant argued that the rule of uniformity and consistency should have been followed, citing that in the appellant's own case for other assessment years with identical facts, the income from repetitive transactions was treated as capital gains, not business income. The Tribunal should have considered the principle of uniformity and consistency as laid down by various Supreme Court judgments.

5. Tribunal's Power to Review its Own Order under Section 254(2):
The Ld. DR argued that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the impugned order and that the Tribunal does not have the power to review its order under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal agreed, stating that a mistake apparent on the record must be obvious and not something that requires a long reasoning process. The Tribunal cited several judgments supporting this view, including T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., and others, concluding that the Tribunal cannot review its own decision unless permitted by statute.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no apparent mistake in the impugned order and dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications (MA) as devoid of merit. The Tribunal emphasized that it does not possess the inherent power to review its decisions unless specifically conferred by law. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 23/07/2019.