No review power vest with ITAT, only authorized to amend his order for mistake apparent from records u/s 254 (2)

Brief of the Case

ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Shakti Cable Industries vs. ITO that it is clear that the words mistake apparent from record, as appearing in the section 254(2) has a special meaning and definite connotation. A patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or arguments to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and only such a mistake can be corrected while applying provisions of section 254(2). It is also a settled legal proposition that the scope of the said section is very limited and circumscribed. Besides, provisions of section 254(2) do not confer power on the Tribunal to review its earlier order or re-appreciate or re-evaluate evidence. In the given case, mistakes pointed out by the assessee are neither patent nor manifest nor self-evident and they require elaborate discussion of evidence or arguments to establish, hence not permissible u/s 254(2).

Facts of the Case

 During the second round of litigation before the Tribunal, the matter was not represented by earlier ld counsel of the assessee who had appeared before it for arguing the Stay application as well as the regular appeal. It has been argued, by the present AR, that concession given by the earlier AR, with regard to re-opening of the assessment, were not binding on the assessee. She made other arguments and the Tribunal decided the appeal on 15.06.2012.

In these miscellaneous Applications, the assessee has contended that the order of the Tribunal, dated 15.06.2012, contained certain mistakes apparent from the record that same have to be rectified, as per the provisions of the section 254(2). The assessee had filed a writ petition before the high Court in which the Court vide its order, dated 8.2.2013 directed the assessee to avail alternate appellate remedy u/s. 260A. The assessee had filed an appeal before the high court and while hearing the appeal the court had passed an order on 19.8.2015 expressing an opinion that it would be appropriate for the assessee to prefer a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.