Delhi High Court: Phonetic Similarity between Boat & Boult Can Cause Confusion Online  ||  SC: Recording Reasons Is Mandatory For Searches without A Warrant under Special Laws  ||  SC Dismissed MP Police Plea against Quashing FIR Alleging Marital Cruelty against MLA Umang Singhar  ||  SC Held Financial Bids in Public Tenders Cannot Be Altered Post-Opening To Protect Process Sanctity  ||  SC: Defendant Cannot File a Counter-Claim against a Co-Defendant under Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC  ||  Supreme Court Ruled That Barring Non-Muslims from Creating Waqfs Is Not Prima Facie Arbitrary  ||  SC Rejected Writ Petition Seeking Review of Judgment Upholding WB Madrasah Service Commission Act  ||  SC Grants Interim Bail to Mahesh Raut on Medical Grounds in Bhima Koregaon Case  ||  SC: Non-Production of Contraband Not Fatal If Seizure and Sample-Drawing Follow S.52A of NDPS Act  ||  Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Industrial Pollution in Rajasthan's Jojari River    

Ramilaben Ganpatbhai Patel vs. Income Tax Officer - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (20 Jul 2022)

Scope of rectification under Section 254(2) of the IT Act is limited to rectify the mistakes and it is not permissible to review the decision taken by the Tribunal

MANU/IB/0460/2022

Direct Taxation

By present Miscellaneous Application, the Assessee is seeking rectification of the mistake alleged to have crept in the order of the Tribunal.

The main contention raised on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the assessee having not received any consideration, there was no question of any capital gain tax chargeable in her hands. The consideration was received by the late father of the assessee and the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal in paragraph no.8 of its order rejecting the contention of the assessee is without any basis. Further, submission is that in the absence of banakhat, sale deed was a proper evidence and there is nothing in the sale deed to show that the assessee, as a legal-heir of her late father, has received any consideration. He contended that, the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A) as regards the sale consideration allegedly received by the assessee during the year under consideration is based only on presumption and without any evidence; and, the reliance of the Tribunal on the conclusion so drawn by the learned CIT(A) is clearly mistaken.

A definite view was taken by the Tribunal while rejecting the main contention of the assessee by passing a well reasoned and well discussed order. It is well settled that the scope of rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) is limited to rectify the mistakes which are apparent from the record and it is not permissible to review the decision taken by the Tribunal. What the assessee is seeking in the guise of this Miscellaneous Application is the review of the well reasoned and well considered decision taken by the Tribunal which is not permissible under Section 254(2) of the IT Act. Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.

Tags : MISTAKE   RECTIFICATION   ALLOWABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved