2013 (6) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....partment came on appeal before this Tribunal with regard to issue of non consideration of Rs. 33,57,146/- relating to repeated/duplicate entries while working out business income of the assessee as well as peak investment in purchases. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue in favour of the assessee. According to the learned DR, while passing the order, the Tribunal held that weight and wastage figures mentioned in the chart prepared by the CIT(A) in his order, are very much the same and matches with duplicate items/entries and hence observed that the CIT(A) is justified in arriving to the conclusion that there were some duplicate entries which were totaled and treated by the AO as turnover of the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mills (330 ITR 164): "Held, that the Tribunal could not readjudicate the matter under section 254(2). It is well settled that a statutory authority cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There was no express power of review conferred on the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review did not extent to rehearing a case on the merits. Neither by invoking inherent power nor the principle of mistake of court not prejudicing a litigant nor by involving doctrine of incidental power, could the Tribunal reverse a decision on the merits. The Tribunal was not justified in recalling its previous finding restoring the addition, more so when an application for the same relief had been earlier dismissed." 5. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not indicate that the Tribunal can recall the entire order and pass a fresh decision. That would amount to a review of the entire order and that is not permissible under the IT Act. The power to rectify a mistake under s. 254(2) cannot be used for recalling the entire order. No power of review has been given to the Tribunal under the IT Act. Thus, what it could not do directly could not be allowed to be done indirectly. 7. In the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. (2007) 207 CTR (Del) 119; (2007) 293 ITR 163 (Del), their Lordships while considering the powers of the Tribunal under....