TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 948
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,000/- levied u/s 271D r.w.s. 274 of the Act and the appeal was decided in favour of the Department by reversing the order of the CIT(A). 3. According to the learned AR, the Tribunal in para 8 and at page 5 recorded the factual submissions of the AR of the assessee that the Assessing Officer never considered the amounts deposited in the Bank account of the assessee for the purpose of taking the Demand Drafts in connection with participation in tender called by the Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and no finding was recorded in the order of the Tribunal. 4. The learned AR submitted that the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion in para 14 that 'no cogent material was produced' and in para 15 'the CIT(A) is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yderabad together with the letter dated 26/04/2007 addressed to the Assessing Officer by various depositors from whom the amounts were received for taking the demand drafts and for whose purpose the amounts were deposited. v) The letter dated 17/04/2008 filed before the Additional CIT, Range - 11, Hyderabad on the same date." 5. In view of the above submissions, the learned AR submitted that the entire order of the Tribunal may be recalled. 6. The DR submitted that there is no mistake apparent on record which warrants recall of Tribunal order and relied on the impugned order of the Tribunal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. In the present case, the Tribunal reversed the order of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal 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." 9. The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. We shall first deal with the question of the power of the Tribunal to recall an order in its entirety. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under s. 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned. Any order passed under s. 254(2) either allowing the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed to be done indirectly. 11. In the case of CIT v. 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 s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 observed as under: "Under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes in its order. However, it is plain that the power to rectify a mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review. Although it is possible that the pre-requisite for exercise of either power may be similar (a mistake apparent from the record), by its very nature the power....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; (f) Sixthly, even if on the basis of a wrong conclusion the Tribunal has not allowed a claim of the party it will not be a ground for moving an application under s. 254(2) of the Act. (g) Lastly, in the garb of an application for rectification under s. 254(2) the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter as the same is beyond the scope of s. 254(2) of the IT Act." 13. Further, the order of the Tribunal is to be read in a whole and not in a piecemeal manner. For this purpose, we place reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P.) Ltd. (176 ITR 535) wherein held that the decision of the Tribunal has not to be scrutin....