Income Tax : The three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd struck dow...
Income Tax : A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay pr...
Income Tax : The existing provisions of Section 254(2) provide for a time-limit of four years from the date of the order of the Appellate Tribu...
Income Tax : The ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment orders were time-barred under Section 153 despite the DRP process. Both assessments we...
Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai held that sales tax and similar State Government incentives were capital receipts because the schemes were intende...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that the estimated disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted and should not form part of book profits, fol...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that sales tax subsidy granted under industrial incentive schemes constituted a capital receipt because its purpose ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that the assessee could not claim deduction under Section 54 for the first time before the Tribunal when it ha...
Recently Delhi High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. s Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited (WP (Civil) no. 5003/2013 dated : 21.02.2014 that ITAT has no power to grant stay beyond 365 days in light of third proviso to Sec. 254(2A) inserted by Finance Act, 2008. High Court further held that Courts must respect legislative mandate.
Tribunal has power to extend the period of stay beyond 365 days u/s.254(2A), third proviso, even if the delay in disposing off the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, there may be several other reasons for not disposing of the appeal by the ITAT.
A bare look at section 254(2) of the Act, which deals with rectification, makes it amply clear that a ‘mistake apparent from the record’ is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of section 254(2), a mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended.
On going through the order passed by the Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal passed the order, after marshalling at the facts considering the submissions made before it and applying its mind to the decisions cited before it. There is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal of the nature as envisaged under section 254(2). Permitting the assessee to raise the same issues over again in the guise of rectification will amount to recalling the appellate order in its entirety and rehearing it afresh, which is not within the scope and ambit of section 254(2).
The words used in s. 254(2) are ‘shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice’. Clearly, if there is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not indicate that the Tribunal can recall the entire order and pass a fresh decision.
