TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not specifically raised in the appeal of the Revenue. 2. It was contended by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal in its order has accepted that the assessee was not required to maintain separate books of account unit-wise and approved the order of the ld. CIT(A) with respect to the rejection of the books of account by the Assessing Officer, but the Tribunal has restored the matter to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are selfcontradictory, as on one hand the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) and on the other hand the matter was remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issue.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing Officer has asked the assessee to furnish complete details and the assessee could not furnish the same. Similar was the position before the ld. CIT(A), but the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition having observed that the assessee was not under any obligation to maintain separate balance sheet and profit and loss account for each and every unit. While adjudicating the issue, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the assessee is not under any obligation to prepare separate balance sheet and profit and loss account for each and every unit, but whenever the assessee was asked by the Assessing Officer to furnish the details of a particular expense debited to the profit and loss account, the assessee is under obligation to furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e I.T. Act, 1961 is to rectify any mistake apparent from record. The jurisdiction to review or modify orders passed by the authorities under the Act cannot be interfered with on the basis of supposed inherent rights. U/s 254(1) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the contesting parties, can pass such order as it deems fit. Sec. 254(2) of the Act specifically empowers the Appellate Tribunal at any time within four years of the date of an order to amend any order passed by it u/s 254(1) of the Act with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from record either suo moto or on an application made. What can be rectified under this section is a mistake which is apparent and patent. The mistake has to be such for which no elaborate re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the worst, lead to perversity of the order for which the remedy available to the assessee is not under section 254(2) but a reference proceedings u/s 256. The normal rule is that the remedy by way of review is a creature of the statute and unless clothed with such power by the statute, no authority can exercise the power. 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. ITAT; 143 CTR 446 has held that "sub-section (1) of section 254 confers ample powers on the Tribunal to pass such orders in any appeal filed before it as it thinks fit. Sub-section (2) of section 254 postulates that the Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-sec. (1) of section 254 with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter not for rectification but it is a matter relating to the merits of the case as to whether the Tribunal has gone wrong in not considering the affidavit of a particular person and has acted upon the statement of the same person which was recorded by the ITO without being permitted to cross examine by the assessee. This is not a matter in which the apparent error is involved but it is a matter more of merit and cannot be rectified within the scope of rectification. The powers of the Tribunal while making a rectification were again examined by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd.; 228 ITR 463 in which their Lordships have held that rectification can only be made when a glaring mistake of fact or law committed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions. The language of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is clear. The foundation for the exercising the jurisdiction is "with a view to rectify any mistake apparent on the record" and the object is achieved by "amending any order passed by it". A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent on the record". 10. Similar views have also been expressed by the Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prahlad Rai Todi 251 ITR 833 by holding that "A bare look at section 254(2) will show that this section gives th....