Tribunal rejects disguised review attempt under section 254, clarifies rectification limited to apparent mistakes only

ITAT Pune dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous application seeking rectification under section 254. The Tribunal had previously allowed the appeal in part, confirming addition under sections 69A and 115BBE. The assessee sought review disguised as rectification, which is impermissible under law. The Tribunal held that failure to consider arguments or wrong conclusions constitute errors of judgment, not apparent mistakes rectifiable under section 254(2). Powers under this section are limited to correcting apparent mistakes from record, not reviewing decisions on merits.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this Miscellaneous Application pertain primarily to the scope and applicability of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of an addition made under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. Specifically, the issues include:

1. Whether the Tribunal's earlier appellate order dated 04.03.2024 in ITA No. 1375/PUN/2023 contains any mistake apparent on record warranting rectification under section 254(2) of the Act.

2. Whether the assessee's contention that the cash deposit of Rs. 11,19,000/- during the demonetization period represents an exchange of old currency notes belonging to family members, rather than borrowing or unexplained money, was adequately considered or incorrectly rejected by the Tribunal.

3. Whether the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE was justified, considering the assessee's explanation and the accounting treatment of cash and bank deposits.

4. The legal scope and limitations of rectification applications under section 254(2) of the Act, especially concerning review or re-argument of issues already decided on merits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Scope of Rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 254(2) empowers the Tribunal to amend any order passed by it to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The power is limited strictly to correction of such mistakes and does not extend to re-hearing or review of the merits of the case. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ras Bihari Bansal vs. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 365 held that oversight of a fact or failure to consider an argument does not constitute a mistake apparent on record. The Supreme Court in CIT (IT-4) Mumbai v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 284 Taxman 517 (SC) reiterated that section 254(2) does not permit the Tribunal to revisit its original order on merits or recall it completely.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the present application is essentially a disguised attempt to seek review of the earlier order, which is impermissible under section 254(2). The Tribunal reiterated that rectification is confined to correcting mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue or re-examine facts or legal contentions already adjudicated.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the assessee's application raised arguments already considered and decided in the main appeal. No new or apparent mistake was demonstrated that would justify amendment of the order.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to consider an alternate plea (ground no. 4) and misinterpreted the nature of cash deposits. The Department countered that these contentions amounted to review rather than rectification. The Tribunal sided with the Department, holding that the application exceeded the scope of rectification.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent on record warranting rectification and dismissed the Miscellaneous Application on this ground.

2. Nature of Cash Deposits and Explanation under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE

Relevant Legal Framework: Section 69A provides that if an assessee is found to be owner of money not recorded in books of account, and fails to satisfactorily explain its nature and source, such money may be deemed income of the assessee. Section 115BBE imposes a special tax rate on such deemed income arising from unexplained cash credits or deposits.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee contended that the cash deposits of Rs. 11,19,000/- during demonetization were not unexplained money but represented an exchange of old currency notes (specified bank notes) belonging to family members for regular currency notes maintained in the assessee's cash book. The cash book extracts showed detailed daily cash balances and sales, with deposits into the bank account explained as withdrawals from the assessee's own cash balance. The books were audited and accepted by the Assessing Officer.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated the exchanged old currency notes as excess cash balance, which the assessee disputed. The Tribunal's earlier order had rejected the contention that the cash deposits came from family members, holding that the explanation was not acceptable in principle. However, the Tribunal had allowed partial relief by reducing the addition from Rs. 11.19 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of the cash deposits as exchanges of old currency notes did not amount to unexplained money, since the cash book and bank deposits accounted for the cash movements. However, the Tribunal had already considered these facts and allowed partial relief.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the Tribunal misunderstood the nature of the cash deposits and failed to consider the alternate plea that the cash balance should be credited against the addition. The Department maintained that the addition was justified under section 69A read with 115BBE. The Tribunal rejected the plea for rectification but did not disturb its earlier partial relief.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 8 lakhs under section 69A read with 115BBE, confirming that the assessee's explanation was not fully satisfactory but allowed some relief on merits in the earlier order. The present application did not warrant revisiting this conclusion.

3. Consideration of Alternate Plea (Ground No. 4) Raised by the Assessee

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Grounds raised in appeals must be considered on merits by the appellate authority. However, once decided, they cannot be reopened under rectification unless a mistake apparent on record is demonstrated.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee contended that the Tribunal did not consider the alternate plea that the cash balance per the cash book should be credited against the addition. The Tribunal examined the appeal record and found that the issue was adjudicated on merits with specific findings.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that failure to consider an argument or ground does not constitute a mistake apparent on record, rather it may be an error of judgment not rectifiable under section 254(2).

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee sought reconsideration of this ground through rectification, while the Department opposed it as impermissible review. The Tribunal agreed with the Department's position.

Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to entertain the plea for rectification on this ground, holding that the alternate plea had been considered and decided in the main order.

Significant Holdings

"Section 254 of the Income Tax Act; 1961, enables the concerned to rectify any 'mistake apparent from the record'. It is well settled that an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under this section. Similarly, failure of the tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion, is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgment. The mere fact that the tribunal had not allowed a deduction, even if the conclusion is wrong, will be no ground for moving an application under section 254(2) of the Act. Further, in the garb of an application for rectification, the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and re-argue the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of the section."

"While considering application under section 254(2) Tribunal is not required to revisit its original order and go in details on merits and completely recall its order as powers under section 254(2) are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from record."

The Tribunal established the core principle that rectification under section 254(2) is confined to correcting mistakes apparent on the record and does not permit review or re-hearing of issues already decided on merits.

On the substantive issue of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization, the Tribunal confirmed that the assessee's explanation was not fully acceptable and upheld an addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE, while granting partial relief from the total addition claimed by the Assessing Officer.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification, holding that no mistake apparent on record existed in the earlier order.

---