2001 (7) TMI 264 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal lacks power to review own order on merits under IT Act Section 254(2) - Upholds original decision

AUTO PISTON MFG. CO. (P) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.

AUTO PISTON MFG. CO. (P) LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - TTJ 078, 815, Issues:1. Rectification of mistakes apparent from the record under section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, where the assessee sought rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. The application highlighted discrepancies in the Tribunal's order regarding the urgency of disbursing bonus and accepting a loan, as well as the acceptance of cash to meet liabilities. The assessee contended that certain facts were factually incorrect and wrongly recorded in the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that the urgency and justifications for their actions were not properly considered.Regarding the loan raised from a finance company, discrepancies were pointed out in the name of the company and the assertion that both parties had accounts in the same bank. The assessee provided evidence to support their claim that the finance company's name was different and that they did not share a bank account. Additionally, it was argued that the urgency of disbursing the bonus and accepting cash to meet liabilities was justified based on the circumstances at that time, which the Tribunal failed to appreciate.The Departmental Representative argued against the Tribunal's power to review its own order under section 254(2) of the Act, citing established legal principles. It was emphasized that the Tribunal's findings were based on the evidence presented and that the observations made in the order were not without basis. The representative contended that rectification cannot be used as a means to review the order passed under section 254(1) of the Act.Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, stating that it did not find merit in the request for rectification. The Tribunal held that it lacked the power to review its own order on merits and declined to reexamine the issue of whether there was a sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. The judgment underscored the limitations on the Tribunal's authority to review its own orders and upheld the original decision based on the evidence and legal principles presented during the proceedings.