ITAT jurisdiction to consider rectification application is extremely limited. Supreme Court dismisses SLP of the Petitioner
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2624 (2018) (11) SC
Earlier, the petitioner had approached High Court against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in declining to rectify its previous order.
The petitioner assessee was aggrieved by the imposition of penalty based upon the findings of the Assessing Officer (AO) that the assessee had received accommodation entries.
The assessee’s appeal before both, the CIT(A) and ITAT was unsuccessful.
However, it approached the ITAT again, under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], contending that the ITAT’s previous orders needed rectification because vital facts had been overlooked.
However, the ITAT turned down the request.
The assessee then approached the High Court with the contention that the ITAT overlooked a salient fact that no opportunity to cross-examination was ever provided to it and in not doing so, the ITAT had fell into error.
However the High Court observed that the petitioner was unsuccessful before the three statutory authorities. Therefore, as far as the appreciation of facts and application of law was concerned, there was no question of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
With respect to the question as to whether the ITAT’s refusal to rectify its previous order (which was based upon the merits of the matter, including the allegation of denial of natural justice), was illegal, the High Court opined that having regard to the extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the ITAT while considering the rectification application, its view could not be considered unreasonable.
Against the order of the High Court, the Petitioner filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which dismissed it.