INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR

M. A. No.90 (Asr)/2014 Arising out of ITA No. 305(Asr)/2010
Assessment Year: 2005-06
M/s. Vivekanand Society of Education and Research (Appellant) vs. Income Tax Officer (Respondent)
Date of Order: 10-11-2015

ORDER

PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM):
This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee against the order of Tribunal dated 13th February, 2014.

2. The learned AR, at the outset, invited our attention to written submissions filed by the assessee during the hearing of the case and submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal had not considered the written submissions and arguments taken by the learned AR, at the time of original hearing. Explaining the facts of the case, the learned AR submitted that the assessee was having two separate institutions which were having two separate PAN Nos. and two separate TAN Nos. and receipts of both the institutions was less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Therefore, separately the assessee was eligible for exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. The learned AR also invited our attention on list of compilation of judgments which he claimed that these judgments were cited before the Hon’ble Tribunal and these judgments were in favour of the assessee. He specifically invited out attention to the order of Delhi Bench (D) in the case of Jat Education Society vs. ITO, reported in (2013) 37 Taxman.com 187. The learned AR submitted that these case laws were in favour of assessee which the Hon’ble Tribunal had ignored. On our direction the learned AR was asked to read the findings of Tribunal contained in para 10 onwards which he readly did. On hearing the findings of the Tribunal, we find that the Hon’ble Tribunal has passed the order after taking into account all documentary evidences including judgments filed by the assessee which is apparent from the para 10 itself and therefore, we are of the opinion that the Hon’ble Tribunal had passed the order after taking into account all arguments and documentary evidences and therefore, any decision contrary to the decision arrived by Tribunal will amount to review of its own decision which is not permissible under the provisions of law. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. TC (A) No.156/2006 has held as under:

“The Tribunal has no power to review its order. When the Tribunal has already decided an issue by applying its mind against the assessee, the same cannot be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act. There was no necessity whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to review its own order. Even after the examination of the judgments of the Tribunal, we could not find a single reason in the whole order as to how the Tribunal is justified and for what reasons. There is no apparent error on the face of the record and thereby the Tribunal sat as an appellate authority over its own order. It is completely impermissible and the Tribunal has traveled out of its jurisdiction to allow a Miscellaneous Petition in the name of reviewing its own order”.

“In the present case, in the guise of rectification, the Tribunal reviewed its earlier order and allowed the Miscellaneous Petition which is not in accordance with law. Section 254(2) of the Act does not contemplate rehearing of the appeal for a fresh disposal and doing so, would obliterate the distinction between the power to rectify mistakes and power to review the order made by the Tribunal. The scope and ambit of the application of Section 254(2) of the Act does not contemplate rehearing of the appeal for a fresh disposal and doing so, would obliterate the distinction between the power of rectify the mistakes and power to review the order made by the Tribunal. The scope and ambit of the application of Section 254(2) is limited and narrow. It is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Recalling the order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order.”

Recalling of the order is not permissible under Section 254(2) of the Act. Only glaring and any mistake apparent on the face of the record alone can be rectified and hence anything debatable cannot be a subject matter of rectification.”

5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th November, 2015.

Sd/-                                                      Sd/-
(A.D. JAIN)                              (T. S. KAPOOR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER    ACCOUNTANT MEMBER