High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 05 DEL CK 0409

Geofin Investment (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 27 May 2011 · Citation: (2012) 348 ITR 118

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dipak Misra, C.J · Sanjiv Khanna, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3744 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 345 words

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—CM No. 7816/2011

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

WP (C) No. 3744/2011

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Geofin Investment (P) Limited, submits that the tribunal had erred in dismissing the application u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) as the tribunal in its order dated 13th October, 2010, had referred to and relied upon decision of another ITAT Bench which had not been cited at the time of hearing. He submits that the order passed by the tribunal dated 13th October, 2010 u/s 254(1) of the Act, should have been recalled.

2.

We do not find any merit in the said contention. u/s 254(2), a mistake apparent from the record can be rectified. The power is circumscribed and limited. There should be mistake which is apparent before the power can be exercised. This is a mandatory pre-condition. The Tribunal in its order dated 13th October, 2011, referred to the controversy in question relating to disallowance made on account of short term capital loss and long term capital loss. The entire issue was examined on merits including the judgments relied upon the Petitioner Assessee. After examining the matter in detail, the tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the revenue. While allowing the appeal, the tribunal also referred to another decision of ITAT, Mumbai, ''F'' Bench, in the case of Macintosh Finance Estates Ltd. v. ACIT. Reliance and reference to reasons stated in Macintosh (supra) cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record. It is not unusual or abnormal for Judges or adjudicators to refer and rely upon judgments/decisions after making their own research.

3.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

4.

We are informed that the Petitioner has filed an appeal u/s 260A of the Act against the order dated 13th October, 2010. The said appeal will be decided on its own merits. It is clarified that we have not commented or expressed our opinion on the merits of the addition.