TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act'). Adjudication relates to the assessment year 1982-83. 1) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a mistake in the appellate order which required rectification on the ground that there was disparity on a point between the impugned order and another order of the Appellate Tribunal? 2) Whether there were materials for the Appellate Tribunal to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals) and re-determine the quantum of penalty? 3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the assessing officer not to follow the decision of the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramlal Chiranjilal vs. ITO which held that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On the aforesaid basis, the Tribunal allowed the petition for rectification. This reference arises under the aforesaid circumstances. 5. The primary question that requires consideration is whether, in the facts that arose before the Tribunal, the circumstances warranted a rectification under Section 254(1) of the Act. 6. We have heard Sri. Bobby John Pulickaparambil learned counsel for the assessee as well as Sri.P.K.Raveendranatha Menon learned Senior Counsel for the department. 7. Section 254(1) & (2) of the Act as it then stood, is as follows: 254. Orders of Appellate Tribunal.-(1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration as held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Others [(1992) 196 ITR 590 (Orissa)]. The Bombay High Court had held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. [(1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom.)] that the failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a decision is not an error apparent on the face of the record, although it may be an error of judgment. An error of judgment is not the same as a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be rectified by the Tribunal under Section 254(2) as held in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Others [(1992) 196 ITR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the Appellate Tribunal on 25.11.1997 directed the assessing officer to determine the quantum of penalty in the light of the decision mentioned above, while in the case of the sister concern of the assessee, the very same Tribunal, two days thereafter i.e., 27.11.1997, refused to direct the assessing officer to follow the directions in Ramlal Chiranjilal's case. 13. A reading of the order under rectification further shows that the Tribunal allowed the rectification on the ground that there is a contradiction in the orders of the Tribunal in respect of the case of the assessee as well as that of the sister concern in which judgments were rendered two days apart and that such a contradiction ought to be removed, so as to have clarity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of Superior Court, still directed Assessing Officer to follow Ramlal Chiranjilal's case. Then the mistakes noted above could facilitate correction under Section 254 of the Act. On the other hand, as in this case, the Tribunal without a changed circumstance surrounding Ramlal Chiranjilal's case entertained a rectification petition. This approach is more counter-productive and contrary to the three-tier mechanism provided under the Act and the subsequent tier to this Court. In view of the above, we hold that, in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal went wrong in allowing the rectification application filed by the department on the basis of a decision rendered subsequent to the order that was sought to be rectifie....