Uplaksh Metal Industries vs Commissioner of Income Tax

The assessee has preferred this appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in I. T. A. No. 1356/ Chd/1993 for the assessment year 1990-91 dated March 21, 2007, seeking to raise following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the pleadings for want of evidence which is in disregard to the order of a co-ordinate Bench?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal''s order is sustainable being de hors to the material on record and the proceedings ?

(iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in giving conclusions being inapposite to the accepted modus operandi as per the Departmental records?

Subsequently, the assessee has filed the amended substantial questions of law which read as under:

(i) Whether, on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 254(2) the same can be construed to be the continuation of the proceedings in appeal as per Section 254(1) ?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal''s order is sustainable rejecting the pleadings u/s 254(2) for want of evidence though indisputably a matter of record during the appellate proceedings ?

(iii) Whether the Tribunal''s order is sustainable being inapposite to the accepted trade practice and material on record?

During the assessment, the Assessing Officer found from the balance-sheet that there was entry of trade creditors. The assessee was required to give intimation with regard to the said entry with a view to ascertain the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the entry. Finally, the Assessing Officer did not accept the genuineness of the entry and made additions to the extent of trade credits. The said view was reversed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), but the Tribunal restored the order of the Assessing Officer, vide order dated May 1, 2003. The assessee preferred an appeal being I. T. A. No. 425 of 2007 in this Court against the said order, which was dismissed on September 23, 2008. The assessee also filed an application for rectification before the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated March 21, 2007. It was held that the application for rectification was in the nature of review, which was not permissible.

Learned counsel for the assessee relies upon the judgment of the hon''ble Supreme Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 : 165 Taxman 307, wherein it was observed that no one should suffer for the mistake of the Tribunal. In that case, the Tribunal by oversight missed out a judgment which was directly on the point.

We do not find any merit in the contention raised.

The scope of rectification is confined to correction of mistake apparent on the face of record and not a mistake with regard to debatable questions, where a conscious decision has been taken. Reference may be made to a recent judgment of the hon''ble Supreme Court in Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., .

The judgment in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 466 , relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner is on different facts situation.

The view taken by the Tribunal on the merits has also been affirmed by this Court.

We are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

The appeal is dismissed.