2021 (1) TMI 399 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Denies Application to Correct Order: Legal Arguments Insufficient for Recall. Limited Rectification Scope.

The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, ruling no mistake apparent in the Tribunal order dated 12.02.2019. Emphasizing limited rectification ... Rectification u/s 254 - Assessee is requesting the Tribunal to adopt the fair market value at ₹ 600 per square meter, instead of ₹ 900 per square meter - HELD THAT:- We note that Tribunal has considered the paper book of the assessee. It is not necessary that Tribunal should consider in its concluding para each and every judgment cited by the assessee. It is not a case of the assessee that Tribunal has not considered the paper book of the assessee, for instance, the Tribunal has given a passing reference of the judgment of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd,[2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] it means the Tribunal was aware about the judgment cited by the assessee in its paper book, however it is not necessary that the said judgment should be used by the Tribunal in its conclusion(ratio). This miscellaneous application, ld Counsel has argued the various legal issues which were already considered by the Tribunal in its order dated 12.02.2019. When an argument and debate is made by ld Counsel for a particular issue then it would not a mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal. The Power to rectify an order, under section 254(2) of the Act is extremely limited and it does not extend to correcting errors of law, or re-appreciating factual findings. The plain meaning of the word 'apparent' is that it must be something which appears to be exfacie and incapable of argument and debate. The Recalling the entire order of the Tribunal would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. Therefore, taking into account the contents of the miscellaneous application (supra), we do not find mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal . Issues:1. Failure to address specific issues in the Tribunal order dated 12.02.2019.2. Non-consideration of certain legal decisions and grounds related to section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act.3. Discrepancies in the treatment of fair market value of assets.Analysis:Issue 1: Failure to address specific issues in the Tribunal order dated 12.02.2019The assessee contended that the Tribunal did not address critical issues raised in the appeal, including the reappraisal of information on records and the application of section 45(3) of the Act. Despite the appellant's objections and directions from the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not dispose of the issues appropriately. The appellant cited relevant decisions to support their claims, emphasizing the importance of addressing objections to avoid assessment order annulment. The Tribunal acknowledged the AO's findings regarding the nature of the appellant's contributions to a firm, but the appellant argued for a different fair market value of assets. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's arguments, stating that the issues were already considered in the original order, and rectification was not warranted.Issue 2: Non-consideration of certain legal decisions and grounds related to section 45(3) of the Income Tax ActThe appellant raised concerns about the Tribunal's failure to consider specific legal decisions and grounds related to section 45(3) of the Act. Despite citing various judgments in support of their case, the Tribunal maintained that it had reviewed the appellant's submissions and the relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal clarified that it was not obliged to address each citation in its final decision as long as the submissions were duly noted and considered during the proceedings. The Tribunal highlighted the limited scope of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act, emphasizing that mere legal arguments do not constitute a mistake apparent on the face of the order. The Tribunal concluded that recalling the entire order to reevaluate legal issues was not within the legislative intent.Issue 3: Discrepancies in the treatment of fair market value of assetsA discrepancy arose regarding the fair market valuation of assets, with the appellant advocating for a lower value than the one adopted by the Tribunal. The appellant's request to revise the fair market value was deemed impermissible under section 254(2) of the Act, as it would amount to rewriting the order. The Tribunal reiterated that the valuation decision was a matter of judicial scrutiny and not subject to the appellant's preferences. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal upheld its original valuation decision, emphasizing that the appellant's contentions did not constitute a mistake apparent in the order.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, ruling that there was no mistake apparent in the Tribunal order dated 12.02.2019. The Tribunal underscored the limited scope of rectification under the Income Tax Act and emphasized that legal arguments and debates do not warrant recalling and reissuing an order. The decision was pronounced on 21/12/2020 in accordance with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.