MUKUND BANKATLAL BHATTAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/14389/2016HC BombayHCBM01040041201615 February 2017Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A. K. MENON,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SANKLECHA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, in its impugned order dated April 11, 2016, had considered the petitioner's submission. It concluded that no error apparent on the record existed in the order dated August 26, 2015, which would necessitate rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court agreed with this conclusion, stating that the appreciation of evidence cannot be a subject matter for rectification of an error apparent on record. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. Therefore, the remedy, if any, for the petitioner concerning the August 26, 2015 order would be to file an appeal against it, rather than seeking review under the guise of rectification. The petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mukund Bankatlal Bhattad, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated April 11, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). This order rejected the petitioner's application for rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order dated August 26, 2015, which pertained to Assessment Year 2007-08. The petitioner's grievance was that the Tribunal's original order had unduly relied on a statement made by the petitioner during search proceedings, wherein a declaration of Rs. 28 lakhs was made. The petitioner sought to have this perceived error rectified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for rectification of its order dated August 26, 2015, under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the petitioner contended that undue reliance was placed on a declaration made during search proceedings? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The Tribunal's order dated August 26, 2015, placed undue reliance on the petitioner's declaration of Rs. 28 lakhs made during search proceedings, and this constituted an error apparent on record that warranted rectification. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2),Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 4.wp-14389.16(civil).doc Sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14389 OF 2016 Mukund Bankatlal Bhattad ..Petitioner Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune & Ors. ..Respondents ........... Mr.  Rohan Deshpande i/b. Neelabh Shreesh for the Petitioner. ...........

CORAM:  M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE :  15th FEBRUARY, 2017

P.C.

1.

This   petition   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of   India challenges the order dated 11th  April, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).  The impugned order dated 11th April, 2016 has rejected the petitioner's application seeking rectification of the order dated 26th August, 2015 passed by the Tribunal under Section 254(1) of the Act in respect of Assessment Year 2007­08. 2. The   grievance   of   the   petitioner   before   us   with   regard   to   the impugned order of the Tribunal is that it did not appropriately  consider the petitioner's submission that undue reliance was placed in the order

2 4.wp-14389.16(civil).doc dated   26th  August,   2015   upon   the   statement   made   by   the   petitioner making a declaration of Rs.28 lakhs during a search proceedings.

3.

We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and concluded that no error apparent on record arises in the order dated 26th August, 2015 warranting a rectification of the same.  The remedy, if any, with the order dated 26th August, 2015 would be an appeal from it a review under the garb of rectification   of   the   order   dated   26th  August,   2015. This   is   so   as appreciation of evidence cannot be a subject matter of rectification for error apparent on record.

4.

In the above view, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.

5.

Accordingly petition dismissed.  No order as to costs. (A. K. MENON, J.) (M. S. SANKLECHA, J.) Wadhwa

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →