TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Rectification of Mistakes Granted under IT Act Section 254(2)</h1> <h3>Ghanshyam Das Jethwani. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appellant's application for rectification of mistakes under section 254(2) of the IT Act. Specific errors in the Tribunal's order ... Mistake Apparent Issues involved:1. Rectification of mistakes apparent on the face of the record under section 254(2) of the IT Act.Comprehensive Analysis:The appellant filed an application under section 254(2) of the IT Act seeking rectification of mistakes apparent in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appellant's representative highlighted specific errors based on erroneous assumptions and ignoring relevant material on record. The representative cited various decisions to support the contention that rectifiable mistakes should be corrected. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued about the provisions of section 254(2) and the Tribunal's powers, emphasizing that not all mistakes are rectifiable under the said section. The Tribunal has the authority to rectify prima facie apparent mistakes but cannot review its judgment. The nature of the mistake determines whether it is rectifiable, and the Tribunal is duty-bound to rectify such errors when identified.The first mistake identified was related to the treatment of jewellery declared in the wealth-tax return. The Tribunal rectified this mistake by allowing credit for the jewellery disclosed in the wealth-tax return. The second mistake involved an observation regarding jewellery on a person, which was corrected based on the Panchnama evidence. The third mistake was about presuming double credit for jewellery received through a will, which was rectified after reviewing the assessment order. The fourth mistake was deemed correct and not rectified. The fifth mistake involved the denial of credit based on incorrect observations about the surrender details, which was rectified by considering the available records. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow credit to the assessee based on the corrected information. The sixth mistake was not discussed as it was rendered moot by the previous corrections. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee was allowed, subject to the rectifications made by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
