Ultimate magazine theme for WordPress.

The Tribunal does not have the power to review its order just for reappreciation of the facts and contentions of the case: ITAT Hyderabad.

Recently, in a case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench observed that the power to review its own order undersection 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not cover the power to reconsider the facts and evidences and then modify the order. According to the facts of the case, the appellant filed an application before the tribunal under Section 254(2) whereby he submitted that while passing the impugned order. It was further submitted by the appellant that even few contentions were also not considered.

According to Section 254 of the IT Act, Orders of Appellate Tribunal:

(1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.

(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub- section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the 2 Assessing] Officer: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this. sub- section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

However, considering the facts at hand, the tribunal held that the order can be reviewed on the basis of such facts. They also find that reappreciation of facts and modification of the Tribunal’s order is nothing but review of ITAT order. U/s 254(2) of the IT Act, ITAT can only rectify the alleged mistakes which are apparent from record and cannot reappreciate the evidence and review its findings as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom.). Therefore, this M.A. is not maintainable and is accordingly rejected.

Comments are closed.