TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 ITA No. 577 & 578/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 were disposed of while partly allowing appeals for Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007-08 and dismissing for 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. The assessee had challenged the impugned orders of assessment by which Assessing officer has rejected the annual letable value of a flat of assessee. The Bench had taken into consideration the fact of unauthorized possession and concluded that therefore ALV can be considered on basis of municipal taxes. 3. Assessee now submits that it had filed a civil suit against the unauthorized occupants on 02.08.2013 for their eviction and necessary documentary evidences in this regard were placed at page no. 3-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present application for rectification. In Para no. 6, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the asssessee have been reproduced while in para no. 9, the Bench had given a finding based upon appreciation of matter on record that assessee could not prove the fact that any legal action has been taken by the assessee against alleged unauthorized possession. Assessee's own case is that the civil suit was filed by the assessee company on 02.08.2013 after the Ld. CIT(A) decision in the case of assessee for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 6. Even otherwise the alleged error cannot be considered to be one apparent on record which can be rectified within the powers of Section 254(2) of the Act as such the power is only for rectification and n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to review the order made by the Tribunal. The following passage from the decision of this court in Karan and Co., [2002] 253 ITR 131 elucidates the difference between review and rectification of an order made by the Tribunal (page 136): "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 section 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned. Any order passed un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. "Mistake" means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting; it is an error; a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. "Apparent" means visible; capable of being seen; easily seen; obious; plain. A mistake which can be rectified under Section 254(2) is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration. The language used in Section 254(2) makes it clear that only amendment to the order passed under Section 254(1) is permissible where it is brought to the notice of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the Civil Procedure Code, the Words are "an error apparent on the face of the record". The two provisions do not mean the same thing. The power of Tribunal in Section 254(2) to rectify "any mistake apparent from the record" is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of "an error apparent on the face of the record". (see T.S Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers, (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) Mistake is an ordinary word, but in taxation laws, it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical or clerical error alone that comes within its purview. It comprehends errors which, after a judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate, are discerned. The word "mistake" is inhere....