2022 (5) TMI 1689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of the ld. DR that the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee for the reasons mentioned in 3.1 & 3.2 of the order. The ld. DR submitted that amendments substituting filing SFT instead of AIR return were effective from FY 2015-16 relevant to AY 2016-17 onwards. Whereas the reporting entity for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14 and there was an obligation to file Annual Information Return (AIR) but not SFTs for reporting the specified transactions under code 001 i.e. cash deposits over 10 lakhs, which is effective from 01/04/2004. The ld. DR, therefore, submitted that there is a mistake apparent from the record and the said mistake is required to be rectified by recalling the order passed in ITA No. 2040/Hyd/2018 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. 4. In the present case, a detailed order was passed by the ITAT when it passed an order on 06.09.2013, by which the ITAT held in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, the said order could not have been recalled by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. If the Assessee was of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous, either on facts or in law, in that case, the only remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer the appeal before th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that. Even the observations that the merits might have been decided erroneously and the ITAT had jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an order recalling its earlier order which is an erroneous order, cannot be accepted. As observed hereinabove, if the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous on merit....