Tribunal dismisses rectification request under Income-tax Act, advises appeal to High Court

The tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of mistakes apparent from records under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing its limited scope to correct such mistakes. The assessee's failure to submit relevant agreements for the assessment year in question and attempts to review the tribunal's decision beyond the rectification scope were noted. The tribunal clarified the timeliness of its order and suggested the assessee pursue recourse through an appeal to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, ultimately dismissing the application.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Rectification of mistakes apparent from records under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Non-submission of relevant agreements by the assessee.
3. Timeliness of the tribunal's order.
4. Attempts to review the tribunal's decision under the guise of rectification.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistakes Apparent from Records under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking rectification of mistakes in the appellate order dated 16.06.2017 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal emphasized that its scope to rectify its own appellate order under Section 254(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from records. The tribunal does not have the power to review its own decision within this limited scope.

2. Non-Submission of Relevant Agreements by the Assessee:

The tribunal highlighted the conduct of the assessee during the assessment/appellate proceedings. The assessee failed to submit various agreements with its clients for the relevant period (assessment year 2009-10) despite being specifically asked by the tribunal. Instead, the assessee submitted an agreement dated 24.10.2013, which pertained to a later period (assessment year 2014-15) and was irrelevant for adjudicating the appeal/issues before the authorities. The tribunal noted that the assessee's conduct was not above board and suggested that something was being hidden from the authorities, which forced them to adjudicate based on the available material.

3. Timeliness of the Tribunal's Order:

The assessee contended that the tribunal's order dated 16.06.2017 was passed beyond the 90-day limit and should be recalled. However, the tribunal clarified that the date of hearing was 20.03.2017, and the date of pronouncement was 16.06.2017, which falls within the 90-day period. The assessee's presumption that the order was passed beyond 90 days was corrected during the hearing, and this plea was not pressed further.

4. Attempts to Review the Tribunal's Decision under the Guise of Rectification:

The assessee raised various pleas on the merits of the issue, attempting to get the tribunal's decision reviewed, which is beyond the purview of Section 254(2). The tribunal reiterated that the scope of Section 254(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from records and does not permit reviewing its own decision. The tribunal dismissed the MA, stating that the assessee's attempt to get the well-reasoned appellate order recalled was not permissible within the limited mandate of Section 254(2). The tribunal suggested that the assessee could seek redress by filing an appeal with the Hon’ble Bombay High Court under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application No. 748/Mum/2017 arising out of ITA No. 7484/Mum/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10, filed by the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 04.09.2019.

---