2016 (2) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad confirmed the levy of penalty under the provisions of sec.271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee through this present petition submits that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal had not considered the submissions of the assessee that the show cause notice was issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind. 3. During the course of hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the assessee had pointed out that though this Hon'ble Tribunal had referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 357 ITR 565(Kar.) no finding was rendered on this aspect. Therefore, he submitted that the order may be recalled in order to adjudicate this ground of a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e raised by invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal is bound to adjudicate only on the grounds which are specifically raised and urged by the assessee to which specific attention of the Tribunal was drawn. This is in conformity with the provisions of sub-rule (6) of rule 18 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. 6. The scope of provisions of sec.254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 were elaborated or reiterated by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs DCIT and another (320 ITR 12) wherein it was held at para.12 & 13 as under: " 12. The scope and amplitude of sec. 254(2) and the analogous provision s. 154 of the Act have been considered by catena ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2) has wider content than the expression "error apparent on the face of the record" occurring in order 47 r. 1 of CPC. The restrictions on the power of review under order 47 r. 1 of CPC do not hold good in the cases of ss. 254(2) and 154 of the Act. Sec. 254(2) does not confer power on the Tribunal to review its earlier order. Under the garb of rectification of mistake it is not possible for a party to take further chance of re-arguing the appeal already decided. What can be rectified under s. 254(2) is a mistake which is apparent and patent. The mistake has to be such for which no elaborate reasons or enquiry is necessary. Where two opinions are possible then it cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the record. When prejudice resultin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... apparent on the face of the record. Vide Asstt. CIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 219 CTR (SC) 90 : (2008) 12 DTR (SC) 346 : (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 425 : (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC), Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque (1955) 1 SCR 1104, CIT vs. Keshri Metal (P) Ltd. (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 531 : (1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC), Deva Metal Power (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 2008 (2) SCC 439, CIT vs. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 122 : (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC), Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (1960) 1 SCR 890, Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Dy. CCT AIR 1964 SC 1372, Batuk K. Vlyas vs. Surat Borough Mu....