TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respective parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing and are being decided by treating Special Civil Application No. 13103 of 2021 as the lead matter, as an analogous issue is involved in all the matters. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions, as taken from the lead matter, are as under:- 4. The petitioner filed the return of income on 25.03.2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,65,840/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147B of the Act on 30.03.2015, making an addition of Rs. 34,59,675/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By order dated 03.04.2017, the CIT(A) dismissed the petitioner's appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") on 08.06.2017. By the order dated 27.06.2019, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 6. Being dissatisfied with the order passed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....019 passed in ITA No. 1407/AHD/2017 and allied matters and has submitted that the said order proceeded on an incorrect factual premise i.e. on the reassessment by the Assessing Officer, which has been initiated at the dictates of the superior authority. It is contended that the said finding was factually incorrect. It is further contended that, while allowing ITA No. 1407/AHD/2017 and allied matters, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts in its proper perspective. Since the order suffered from a mistake apparent from the record, the Revenue preferred an application under Section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, it urged that since the Tribunal has precisely recalled and set aside its judgment and order by allowing the Miscellaneous Applications filed under Section 254(2) of the Act, the writ petitions may not be allowed. 12. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, at length. 13. The aforementioned facts are not in dispute. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 03.04.2017 passed by the CIT (Appeals), the petitioners preferred appeals before the Tribunal, being ITA Nos. 1407 to 1412/AHD/2017, pertaining to Assessment Years 2007-08 onwards. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d must demonstrate due application of mind by the Assessing Officer. 17. The Tribunal further recorded that apart from the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) relating to the sale of immovable property, no other information has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer while forming the opinion that income had escaped assessment in the case of the assessee. 18. The Tribunal also observed that the Assessing Officer has failed to consider material particulars, such as the details of the land in question, the nature of the land, proof of the assessee's ownership thereof, cogent documentary evidence relating to the alleged sale, including the registered conveyance deed, as well as the date of sale, which was necessary for determining the capital gains. According to the Tribunal, these aspects ought to have been considered by the Assessing Officer while recording the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. 19. The Tribunal thereafter discussed, in detail, the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), as well as the judgments of the Supreme Court and ultimately held that there was no escapement of income within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. 20. The T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited (supra). After considering the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "3.1 We have considered the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the ITAT allowing the miscellaneous application in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act and recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 as well as the original order passed by the ITAT dated 06.09.2013. 3.2 Having gone through both the orders passed by the ITAT, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 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 06.09.2013, it appears that the ITAT has re-heard the entire appeal on merits as if the ITAT was deciding the appeal against the order passed by the C.I.T. In exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 of the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecause 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 merits, in that case, the remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court, which in fact was filed by the Assessee before the High Court, but later on the Assessee withdrew the same in the instant case." 24. A combined reading of the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act, the legislative intent underlying the said provision and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited (supra) makes it abundantly c....