BHAGWAN SINGH PALARIA vs. C I T AJMER AND ANOTHER

ITA/32/2015HC RajasthanRJHC02083044201508 December 201513 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

This appeal by Shri Bhagwan Singh Palaria (the assessee) is against an order dated 19/09/2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in a miscellaneous application. The original assessment order for the block period 1988-89 to 1997-98 and up to 20/10/1998 was passed on 14/07/2000, determining undisclosed income at Rs. 2,47,88,452/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partially allowed the assessee's appeal. Cross-appeals were filed before the Tribunal, which passed an order on 20/07/2005, allowing both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals in part. Subsequently, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's order dated 20/07/2005. The Tribunal dismissed this application by the impugned order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, had correctly considered the assessee's arguments and found that the claim regarding Section 142(2A) (special audit) was specifically dealt with in paragraphs 36 to 40 of its earlier order dated 20/07/2005, with detailed reasoning for rejecting the assessee's claim. Since the Tribunal had decided the claim on merits in its earlier order, it correctly concluded that no mistake was apparent on the face of the record. The Court found that the assessee, by filing the application under Section 254(2), was in fact attempting to review the order dated 20/07/2005, which is impermissible. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that a mistake apparent on the record must be obvious and patent, not requiring a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible. The Court noted that the assessee had also filed a separate appeal (DB Income Tax Appeal No.54/2006) against the Tribunal's order dated 20/07/2005, raising substantial questions of law, including one related to the interpretation of Section 142(2A) and the validity of the special audit direction. Therefore, the High Court found no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order and upheld the Tribunal's rejection of the miscellaneous application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the assessee's miscellaneous application filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of alleged mistakes apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal's earlier order dated 20/07/2005. Assessee's Contentions: - Certain mistakes apparent on the face of the record had crept into the Tribunal's order dated 20/07/2005, and some issues were not decided at all, making them rectifiable. - The Tribunal erred in not answering how an audit could have been conducted or required when no record was impounded or seized. - A ground raised before the CIT(A) was wrongly recorded as not pressed, though the assessee had not withdrawn it. - The Tribunal cursorily rejected the application despite several other noticed mistakes, and a substantial question of law arises. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the Revenue regarding the dismissal of the miscellaneous application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2),Section 142(2A),Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR DB Income Tax Appeal No.32/2015 Shri Bhagwan Singh Palaria Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax & anr. Date of Order :: 08/12/2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mr. PK Kasliwal, counsel for the appellant

1.

This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act') is directed against the order dt.19/09/2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'Tribunal') in MA No.56/JP/2009 in ITSSA No.6 & 12 12/JP/2002, Bhagwan Singh Palaria Vs. ACIT and is for the block period 1988-89 to 1997-98 and upto 20/10/1998. 2. Brief facts, noticed for disposal of the appeal, are that an assessment order came to be passed by the Assessing Officer for the block period as noticed earlier on 14/07/2000 determining the undisclosed income at Rs.2,47,88,452/-. The appellant preferred an appeal against the same before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer (for short, 'CIT(A)') who allowed the same in part. Both, the appellant as well as the Revenue, filed cross appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 142(2A)

All 666 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(2A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →