Tribunal is not bestowed with powers to review its order: HC

Pr. CIT Vs Godrej Investment Ltd (Bombay High Court)

In this case The view taken by the Tribunal in its order dated 9 July 2018 in both the Assessment Years was on the basis of the record available before it and its understanding/appreciation of the evidence on record for the two Assessment Years. This is not a case of an error apparent on record which would warrant interference. In case the parties are aggrieved by order dated 9 July 2018, it is open to the parties to file an appeal under the Act. The allowing of such an application for rectification by the Tribunal would amount to review of the order dated 9 July 2018. This is impermissible as the Tribunal is not bestowed with powers to review its order.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

These two Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge a common order dated 29 March 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The common impugned order dated 29 March 2019 rejected the Petitioner’s application for rectification of an order dated 9 July 2018 passed under Section 254(1) of the Act relating to Assessment Years 2008-­09 and 2009-10.

2. The Tribunal by its order dated 9 July 2018 upheld the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer had not recorded his dissatisfaction with the suo motu disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act by the Petitioner before invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules (Rules). The Tribunal in its aforesaid order relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 that in the absence of the Assessing Officer recording that the suo motu disallowance is not correct, the provisions of Rule 8D cannot be invoked/applied.

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