TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticle 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur (for short 'the ITAT') invoking the powers under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') whereby, order dated 23.09.2022 passed in ITA No. 239/RPR/2019 has been recalled. 3. Brief facts of the case are that against the Petitioner/assessee, a combined assessment order under Section 153A of the Act of 1961 was passed on 28.12.2018 for the assessment year 2011-12 till 2017-18 against which, the Petitioner/assessee has preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A) and the same has been allowed vide order dated 15.10.2019 and against the said order, both the assessee as well as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. 5. At the bar, it is stated that there is no progress though the Petitioner/assessee has informed about the pendency of the Writ Petition to the said authority. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that scope of review provided under Code of Civil Procedure is different from that of powers exercised under Section 254(2) of the Act of 1961 and the said Act enables the power of rectification only when there is mistake apparent from the face of the record or if the said mistake is brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the Petitioner/assessee or the Revenue. He further submits that the term what is a "mistake apparent from the record" has been explained in the matter of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record" precisely, scientifically and with certainty. 27. In the leading case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque [AIR 1955 SC 233] the Constitution Bench of this Court quoted the observations of Chagla, C.J. in Batuk K. Vyas v. Surat Borough Municipality [AIR 1953 Bom 133], that no error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it is not manifest or self-evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it. The Court admitted that though the said test might apply in a majority of cases satisfactorily, it proceeded to comment that there might be cases in which it might not work inasmuch as an error of law might be considered by one Judge as apparent, patent and self-evident, but might not be so conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. As the above discussion of the rival contentions show the alleged error in the present case is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments. We do not think such an error can be cured by a writ certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superio court to issue such a writ." XXXX 30. In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on merits and powers under Section 254(2) of the Act of 1961 are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record and referred to para-3.2 of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4), Mumbai (supra), which reads as follows:- "3.2. Having gone through both the orders passed by ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by ITAT dated 18-11-2016 [Reliance Communications Ltd. V. CIT, 2016 SCC OnLine ITAT 14331] recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 [CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine ITAT 8949] is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. While allowing the application under Section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-2013 [CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is an error of procedure apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the same has rightly been corrected by way of impugned order. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as also the documents annexed herewith carefully. 9. On minute scrutiny of impugned order, it is explicit that on the date of hearing, there were two Appeals; one which was filed by the Petitioner/assessee and the other i.e. cross-Appeal filed by the Revenue, which have been heard together on 29.07.2022 and reserved for orders. A submission has been made by the Petitioner/assessee that as the tax effect involved in the Appeal of the Revenue is below the limit as per the CBDT circular, therefore, Appeal was not maintainable. As th....