TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 674
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9-10 respectively. 2. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the above said two appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal along with the appeal of the revenue by a common order dated 3.6.2020. 3. The Ld. A.R. submitted that there are two mistakes in the orders passed by the Tribunal in AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. The first mistake relates to the deduction allowed u/s 10A of the Act. He submitted that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in AY 2008-09 has been followed by the Tribunal in AY 2009-10 also. Accordingly, the Ld A.R, first took us through the order passed in assessment year 2008-09. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee, in ground No.1 of its appeal, had agitated the quantum of deduction allowed u/s 10A of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Tribunal, in its order passed for assessment year 2008-09, has taken note of the order passed by the CIT(A) for assessment year 2009-10. In the said order, CIT(A) had observed that the assessee itself has admitted that it could not realize an amount of Rs. 20.23 crores out of the total export sales of Rs. 1880.48 crores. Based on the above such observation of Ld CIT(A) made in AY 2009-10, the Tribunal took the view in AY 2008- 09 that the assessee himself has admitted before Ld. CIT(A) that it could not realize the amount. The fact remains that the above said observations were made by Ld CIT(A) in the appeal pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. Based on the above facts, the Tribunal came to the concl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of Ld. CIT(A). 8. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon'ble Courts have held that the additional grounds can also be raised orally. Further, the provisions of section 254(1) of the Act authorize the Tribunal to pass such orders as it think fit. The Ld. A.R. also placed reliance on rule 11 & 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and submitted that the decision of the Tribunal has been rendered on wrong understanding of the principles governing the issue and hence, it is a mistake apparent from record. 9. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the decision rendered by coordinate bench in the case of Gowthami Associates Vs. ITO 89 Taxmann.com 192, wherein the Tribunal had followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;mistake apparent from the record' warranting rectification by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 254(2). By reconsidering the application of principles laid down by superior Courts to the facts of the case or by reconsidering its findings recorded, or by reconsidering the application of the relevant provisions of law to the facts of the case, in a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2), the Tribunal would be exercising power of review of its earlier order on merits but not 'rectification of mistake apparent from the record' and such review would certainly be beyond the scope of section 254(2). 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court which is the jurisdictional Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. It was also submitted that there is no observation in the orders of the tax authorities about non-realisation of export proceeds altogether, as observed by the Tribunal, i.e., it is nobody's case that the assessee did not realize export proceeds at all. According to Ld A.R, Ld CIT(A) observations also meant that the assessee did not realize the amount mentioned above within the prescribed time. Thus, we notice that it is a case of incorrect understanding of facts. 12. Before us Ld D.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Gowthami Associates (supra), which in turn placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd (supra....