Dear All,
I want to draw attention to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Ramesh Electric 213 ITR 497 where it was held that the ITAT's failure to condier an argument does not amount to a mistake apparant from the record for purposes of s. 254(2) of the IT ACt, 1961.
However, in Honda Siel Power Products vs. CIT (Supreme Court) {Pl. see SC section of this site}, the SC has held that the ITAT's failure to refer to a decision cited was a mistake apparant from the record. The following observations are worth noting:
"The purpose behind enactment of section 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent powers of the Tribunal.....
When prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wronged party by the court or Tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power to review. In the present case, the Tribunal was justified in exercising its powers under section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the coordinate bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material which was already on record."
IMHO, these observations are very wide and render the judgement in Ramesh Electric bad-in-law.
Do you agree?
I want to draw attention to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Ramesh Electric 213 ITR 497 where it was held that the ITAT's failure to condier an argument does not amount to a mistake apparant from the record for purposes of s. 254(2) of the IT ACt, 1961.
However, in Honda Siel Power Products vs. CIT (Supreme Court) {Pl. see SC section of this site}, the SC has held that the ITAT's failure to refer to a decision cited was a mistake apparant from the record. The following observations are worth noting:
"The purpose behind enactment of section 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent powers of the Tribunal.....
When prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wronged party by the court or Tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power to review. In the present case, the Tribunal was justified in exercising its powers under section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the coordinate bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material which was already on record."
IMHO, these observations are very wide and render the judgement in Ramesh Electric bad-in-law.
Do you agree?